Title Page
Palm Springs Unified School District
Educational Technology Plan
July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2010
|District Information (Contact Information) |
|District Name: |Palm Springs Unified School District |
|CDS Code: |33 67173 0000000 |
|District Phone Number: |(760) 416-6000 |
|Contact Name: |Frank Tinney |
|Contact Title: |Senior Director, Educational Services |
|Contact Phone Number: |760-416-6079 |
|Contact Email: |ftinney@psusd.us |
Table of Contents (Short)
Table of Figures 9
Acknowledgements 10
Appendix I: Benchmark Review 12
District Profile 15
Overview 17
1. Plan Duration 21
2. Stakeholders 22
3. Curriculum 26
4. Professional Development 68
5. Infrastructure, Hardware, Software, and Support 90
6. Funding and Budget 116
7. Monitoring and Evaluation 136
8. Adult Education 141
9. Research-Based Methods, Strategies, and Criteria 144
Appendix A: Teacher and Student Access to Technology 148
Appendix B: Raw Data for Charts in Sections 3, 4, and 5 149
Appendix D: 21st Century Skills 150
Appendix E: Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence 151
Appendix F: Sample Survey Questions 152
Appendix G: Technology Coach Qualifications and Outline of Commitment 153
Appendix H: Cabling Specifications 154
Appendix J: Acceptable Use Policies 155
Appendix K: Technical Support Data 156
Appendix L: California School Technology Survey Data 157
Appendix M: Annual IT Audit Process 158
Appendix N: Minimum Specifications 159
Appendix O: Raw Data for Section 6 160
Appendix P: Adult Education Tech Plan 161
Appendix Q: Answers to Guiding Questions 162
Appendix R: Additional Stakeholder Feedback 163
Appendix C: Criteria for EETT-Funded Education Technology Plans 167
Table of Contents (Expanded)
Table of Figures 9
Acknowledgements 10
Appendix I: Benchmark Review 12
District Profile 15
Overview 17
Scope of Plan 17
Needs Assessment 17
Mission Statement 17
Technology Definition 18
Definition of Terms 19
1. Plan Duration 21
1a. The plan should guide the district’s use of education technology for the next three to five years. 21
2. Stakeholders 22
2a. Description of how a variety of stakeholders from within the school district and the community-at-large participated in the planning process. 22
The Planning Process 22
Stakeholders Involved in The Process 23
3. Curriculum 26
3a. Description of teachers’ and students’ current access to technology tools both during the school day and outside of school hours. 27
3b. Description of the district’s current use of hardware and software to support teaching and learning. 32
Administrators Technology Use 32
Teacher Technology Use: Curriculum Planning and Delivery 34
Teacher Technology Use: Data Management 37
Teacher Technology Use: Communications 39
Student Technology Use 41
3c. Summary of the district’s curricular goals and academic content standards in various district and site comprehensive planning documents. 47
District Strategic Goals (District Strategic Plan 2007) 47
Performance Goals (LEA Plan 2003-2008) 47
3d. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan for using technology to improve teaching and learning by supporting the district curricular goals and academic content standards. 49
3d.1. Goal - All students will use technology to support their mastery of district and state academic standards. 49
3d.2. Goal - All students will use technology to support their development of 21st Century Learning Skills, as identified in enGauge: 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners. 51
3e. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan detailing how and when students will acquire technology and information literacy skills needed to succeed in the classroom and the workplace. 53
3e.1. Goal - All students will master the technology skills identified in the District Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence. 53
3e.2. Goal - All students will master Information Literacy skills, as identified in enGauge: 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners. 54
3f. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan for programs and methods of utilizing technology that ensure appropriate access to all students. 56
3f.1. Goal - All students will have appropriate access to technology. 56
3f.2. Goal – One-to-One Initiative: The District will implement one-to-one pilot programs in order to better understand an environment in which each student will have access to a computer whenever necessary to meet the goals in sections 3d and 3e. 60
3g. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan to utilize technology to make student record keeping and assessment more efficient and supportive of teachers’ efforts to meet individual student academic needs. 61
3g.1. Goal - The District will use technology to improve student achievement through data collection, analysis, reporting, and data driven decision-making. 61
3h. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan to utilize technology to make teachers and administrators more accessible to parents. 63
3h.1. Goal - The District will utilize technology to make teachers and administrators more accessible to parents. 63
3i. List of benchmarks and a timeline for implementing planned strategies and activities. 65
3j. Description of the process that will be used to monitor whether the strategies and methodologies utilizing technology are being implemented according to the benchmarks and timeline. 66
Site Level: Technology Coaches 66
District Level: Advisory Committee 67
Articulation and Reporting to Leadership 67
4. Professional Development 68
4a. Summary of the teachers’ and administrators’ current technology skills and needs for professional development. 69
Administrators' Current Technology Skills 69
Teachers' Current Technology Skills 71
Teacher Professional Development Needs 75
4b. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan for providing professional development opportunities based on the needs assessment and the Curriculum Component goals, benchmarks, and timeline. 76
4b.2. Goal - Instructional staff will guide students in the use of technology to support development of 21st Century Learning Skills. 78
4b.3. Goal - Instructional staff will guide students in the mastery of technology skills identified in the District Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence. 79
4b.4. Goal - Instructional staff will guide students in the mastery of Information Literacy skills, as identified in enGauge: 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners. 80
4b.5. Goal - The District will implement one-to-one pilot programs in order to better understand an environment in which each student will have access to a computer whenever necessary to meet the goals in sections 3d and 3e. 81
4b.6. Goal - The District will use technology to improve student achievement through data collection, analysis, reporting, and data driven decision-making. 82
4b.7. Goal - The District will utilize technology to make teachers and administrators more accessible to parents. 84
4b.8. Goal - Certificated staff will master the technology skills necessary to support instruction and administration, as identified in the CTAP Level 1 and Level 2 Teacher Technology Proficiencies. 85
4b.9. Goal - Classified staff will master the technology skills necessary to support the instructional and business operations of the District. 86
4c. List of benchmarks and a timeline for implementing planned strategies and activities. 88
4d. Description of the process that will be used to monitor whether the professional development goals are being met and whether the planned professional development activities are being implemented in accordance with the benchmarks and timeline. 89
5. Infrastructure, Hardware, Software, and Support 90
5a. Describe the technology hardware, electronic learning resources, networking and telecommunications infrastructure, physical plant modifications, and technical support needed by the district’s teachers, students, and administrators to support the activities in the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan. 91
Hardware 91
Electronic Learning Resources 95
Networking and Telecommunications Infrastructure 96
Physical Plant Modifications 96
Technical Support 97
Safe and Secure Computing Environment 100
Policies and Procedures 100
5b. Describe the existing hardware, Internet access, electronic learning resources, and technical support already in the district that could be used to support the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan. 101
Hardware 101
Internet Access 101
Electronic Learning Resources 103
Technical Support 104
Safe and Secure Computing Environment 105
5c. List of clear benchmarks and a timeline for obtaining the hardware, infrastructure, learning resources and technical support required to support the other plan components. 106
5c.1. Software Goal - The District will provide the software and Electronic Learning Resources (ELRs) necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9. 106
5c.2. Hardware Goal - The District will provide the hardware (computers and peripherals) necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9. 107
5c.3. Infrastructure Goal - The District will provide the networking and telecommunications infrastructure necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9. 109
5c.4. Physical Plant Goal - The District will provide the physical plant modifications necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9. 111
5c.5. Technical Support Goal - The District will provide the technical support necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9. 111
5c.6. Safety and Security Goal - The District will provide a safe and secure computing environment for students and staff. 112
5c.7. Policies and Procedures Goal - The District will establish policies and procedures for student and staff use of the Internet, including email, Instant Messaging, video conferencing, and two-way web technologies such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts. 113
5d. Description of the process that will be used to monitor whether the goals and benchmarks are being reached within the specified time frame. 115
6. Funding and Budget 116
6a. List of established and potential funding sources and cost savings, present and future. 117
Funding Sources 117
Savings Sources 119
6b. Estimate implementation costs for the term of the plan (three to five years). 120
Professional Development 120
Technical Support 123
Software 124
Hardware 126
Infrastructure 129
Overall Costs 131
6c. Description of the level of ongoing technical support the district will provide. 133
6d. Description of the district’s replacement policy for obsolete equipment. 134
6e. Description of the feedback loop used to monitor progress and update funding and budget decisions. 135
7. Monitoring and Evaluation 136
7a. Description of how technology’s impact on student learning and attainment of the district’s curricular goals, as well as classroom and school management, will be evaluated. 137
7b. Schedule for evaluating the effect of plan implementation. 139
7c. Description of how the information obtained through the monitoring and evaluation will be used. 140
8. Adult Education 141
8a. If the district has identified adult literacy providers, there is a description of how the program will be developed in collaboration with those providers. 141
Adult Education Goals 143
9. Research-Based Methods, Strategies, and Criteria 144
9a. Description of how education technology strategies and proven methods for student learning, teaching, and technology management are based on relevant research and effective practices. 145
9b. Description of thorough and thoughtful examination of externally or locally developed education technology models and strategies. 146
9c. Description of development and utilization of innovative strategies for using technology to deliver rigorous academic courses and curricula, including distance-learning technologies (particularly in areas that would not otherwise have access to such courses or curricula due to geographical distances or insufficient resources). 147
Appendix A: Teacher and Student Access to Technology 148
Appendix B: Raw Data for Charts in Sections 3, 4, and 5 149
Appendix D: 21st Century Skills 150
Appendix E: Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence 151
Appendix F: Sample Survey Questions 152
Appendix G: Technology Coach Qualifications and Outline of Commitment 153
Appendix H: Cabling Specifications 154
Appendix J: Acceptable Use Policies 155
Appendix K: Technical Support Data 156
Appendix L: California School Technology Survey Data 157
Appendix M: Annual IT Audit Process 158
Appendix N: Minimum Specifications 159
Appendix O: Raw Data for Section 6 160
Appendix P: Adult Education Tech Plan 161
Appendix Q: Answers to Guiding Questions 162
Appendix R: Additional Stakeholder Feedback 163
Appendix C: Criteria for EETT-Funded Education Technology Plans 167
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Palm Springs USD 2005-06 School Data 16
Figure 2. Palm Springs USD 2005-06 Student Ethnicity 16
Figure 3. Palm Springs USD 2005-06 Student & Teacher Data 16
Figure 4. Numbers of Computers Per Type of Location 28
Figure 5. Numbers of Computers Per Age Category. 29
Figure 6. Site-Based Technical Support (In Average FTE Per Site) 30
Figure 7. Site-Based Curriculum Support (By Average FTE Per Site) 31
Figure 8. Administrator Technology Use 32
Figure 9. eMail Access 33
Figure 10. Frequency of Technology Use in Core Subjects 34
Figure 11. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers For Preparation 34
Figure 12. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers For Instruction 35
Figure 13. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers For Instruction (By Application) 35
Figure 14. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers (By Application and School Type) 36
Figure 15. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers to Manage and Apply Data 37
Figure 16. Frequency of Data Management By School Type. 38
Figure 17. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers to Communicate 39
Figure 18. Frequency of Communications By School Classification. 40
Figure 19. Frequency of Technology Use By Students For Instruction 41
Figure 20. Frequency of Student Use of Technologies for Learning: Comparisons. 42
Figure 21. Student Technology Use 43
Figure 22. Student Technology Use: Elementary School 44
Figure 23. Student Technology Use: Middle School 45
Figure 24. Student Technology Use: High School 45
Figure 25. Administrator Technology Proficiency 70
Figure 26. Teacher Technology Proficiency 72
Figure 27. Teacher Proficiency on Standard 9 73
Figure 28. Teacher Proficiency on Standard 16 74
Figure 29. Student-to-Computer Ratio Needs 2007-2010 92
Figure 30. Student-to-Computer Ratio Costs 2007-2010 93
Figure 31. One-to-One Needs 2007-2010 94
Figure 32. One-to-One Costs 2007-2010 95
Figure 33. Technician Needs 2007-2010 98
Figure 34. Technician Costs 2007-2010 99
Figure 35. Existing WAN Infrastructure 2007 102
Figure 36. Professional Development Costs 2007-2010 122
Figure 37. Technical Support Costs 2007-2010 123
Figure 38. Software Costs 2007-2010 125
Figure 39. Student-to-Computer Ratio Costs 2007-2010 126
Figure 40. One-to-One Costs 2007-2010 127
Figure 41. Hardware Costs 2007-2010 128
Figure 42. Infrastructure Costs 2007-2010 130
Figure 43. Overall Cost 2007-2010 131
Acknowledgements
The District would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for their contributions to this educational technology plan.
School Board of Trustees
Meredy Shoenberger, Board President
Shari Stewart, Board Clerk
Gary Jeandron, Board Member
Justin Blake, Board Member
Donald T. Aikens, Board Member
Cabinet Administrators
Lorri S. McCune Ed. D., Superintendent of Schools
Mauricio Arellano, Assistant Superintendent; Human Resources
Craig Borba Ed. D., Assistant Superintendent; Pupil Personnel Services
James Novak, Assistant Superintendent; Business Services
Lorraine Becker Ed. D., Assistant Superintendent; Innovation, Resource and Educational Program Development
Educational Technology Planning Committee
Frank Tinney, Senior Director; Educational Services
Lee Grafton, Educational Technology Specialist & Curriculum Subcommittee Lead
Mark Wagner, Consultant; Educational Technology and Life Corporation
Jenny Thomas, CTAP Region 10 Representative
Curriculum Subcommittee:
Susan Brister
Karen Cornett
Sandi Enochs
Pete A’Hearn
Susan Hurst
Erik Mickelson
Janis Reutz
Mike Swize
Professional Development Subcommittee:
Don Slusser, Subcommittee Lead
Barbara Anglin
Matt Hamilton
Nettie Roberts
Wendy Sherwood
Infrastructure Subcommittee:
Will Carr, Subcommittee Lead
Fernando Cabeje
Rick Corl
Janeth McDaniel
Funding Subcommittee:
Evelyn Hernandez, Subcommittee Lead
Brian Murray
Monitoring Subcommittee:
Steve Mahoney, Subcommittee Lead
Joan Boiko
Kim McNulty
Diana Verney, Career and Technical Education
Anne Kalisek, Ed.D., Alternative Education
Tracy Piper, Alternative Education
Virginia D. Eberhard, Ph.D., Adult Education
Ranjit Mayadas, CTAP Region 9 Representative
All of the District staff who attended the Staff Forum on January 16, 2007
All of the community members who attended the Community Forum on January 29, 2007
Everyone who contributed to the planning wiki at
Everyone who contributed to the planning process via email
Appendix I: Benchmark Review
California Department of Education EETT-F02BR Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT)
Education Technology Plan Benchmark Review
EETT-F02BR (rev. 09/04)
Education Technology Plan Benchmark Review
For the grant period ending June 30, 2007
|IDENTIFYING INFORMATION: |
| |
|CDS # 33 67173 0000000 |
|Applicant Name: Palm Springs Unified School District |
|The No Child Left Behind Act requires each Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant recipient to measure the performance of their |
|educational technology implementation plan. To adhere to these requirements, describe the progress towards the goals and benchmarks in your |
|education technology plan as specified below. The information provided will enable the technology plan reviewer better to evaluate the revised |
|technology plan and will serve as a basis should the district be selected for a random EETT review. Include this signed document with your |
|revised education technology plan submitted to your regional California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP) office. |
|Describe your district’s progress in meeting the goals and specific implementation plan for using technology to improve teaching and learning as |
|described in Section 3.d., Curriculum Component Criteria, of the EETT technology plan criteria described in Appendix C. (1-3 paragraphs) |
|At all schools, there is now a teacher workstation in each classroom, there is Internet connectivity in instructional areas, and there are |
|networked printers available to students and teachers. A wide variety of grade and subject appropriate diagnostic, remedial, reinforcement, and |
|enrichment software is in use, though the purchase and use of this software is not systematically coordinated. These technologies include |
|technologies not mentioned in the 2002-2007 plan, including InterWrite Tablets, Qwizdom, and United Streaming. The district-wide student to |
|computer ratio is 7.01:1 as of 2006 School Technology Survey. However, at that time, 47.15% (nearly half) of all computers were identified as more|
|than four years old. The District network is strictly controlled in order to provide a safe online environment for students. Technical support has|
|improved considerably; currently the Technology and Information Services response time varies from the severity of the issue, usually ranging from|
|an immediate response to 48 hours. Remote support software is used that allows 70% of all call tickets to be resolved immediately. |
| |
|At the elementary level, most (but not all) sites have acquired a mobile lab of 40 portable word processors for the development of keyboarding and|
|word-processing skills. Many new LCD projectors have been purchased, though these purchases have not been systematically tracked and it is |
|estimated that the goal of 1 LCD projector to every 10 classrooms is unlikely to have been met. At the middle school level, each school has at |
|least 2 labs (stationary and/or mobile) with at least 1 used as an "open lab." Due to the EETT grant, it is estimated that middle schools have met|
|the goal of 1 projector per 10 classrooms. At the high school level, each school has at least 3 labs (stationary and/or mobile) with at least 1 |
|used as an "open lab." Many new LCD projectors have been purchased as well, though it is unlikely the goal of 1 LCD projector to every 5 |
|classrooms has been met. |
| |
|Several needs became clear during this review. Appropriate student access to technology for academic support is still needed; student time on |
|computers (primarily in labs and mobile labs) is limited and not immediate available on-demand or just-in-time. While several technology elective |
|courses exist at the middle and high school levels, a comprehensive Information Technology Career path program is not available. In addition, |
|providing on-going professional development in the use of technology to support instruction has been a challenge for the District. One notable |
|exception is the EETT grant, which does provide a good model for professional development, including teachers serving as technology coaches and |
|working in collaborative teams. Also, the District would benefit from a system for coordinating technology purchases and use district-wide. |
|Finally, it is clear that significant funding will be necessary to replace aging equipment over the next three years. |
|Describe your district’s progress in meeting the goals and specific implementation plan for providing professional development opportunities based|
|on the needs assessment and the Curriculum Component goals, benchmarks and timeline as described in Section 4.b., Professional Development |
|Component Criteria, of the EETT technology plan criteria described in Appendix C. (1-3 paragraphs) |
|All educators and staff were trained (or offered training) in the use of the new Exchange email system and shared network drives. Training in the |
|Zangle student information system (which has replaced PowerSchool) was delivered to all educators and staff, and offered to parents at the |
|secondary level. Training in the Data Director system has been offered to all educators and staff via a train-the-trainers model. All |
|administrators completed AB 75 module 3. All BTSA teachers receive instruction in teaching standards 9 and 16. All applicable teachers completed |
|AB 466 training for adopted textbooks and supplemental technology resources. |
| |
|Educators participating in the EETT grant at the middle schools have received frequent and on-going training in the use technology to support |
|student achievement in mathematics. This includes formal professional development opportunities, coaching, peer coaching, a coaching academy (for |
|teacher technology coaches), time for collaborative planning, shared network resources, and on-demand online professional development (via |
|). Similar support is available for other sites on an as-requested basis, but this is not often requested. |
| |
|To a degree, the district has been able to provide educators and staff with flexible training options (such as before/after school, Saturdays, |
|summer academies, intersession, prep time, in-class modeling, sub release, on-line, etc.). However, the systematic effort, funding, and support |
|necessary to provide additional options remains a need for the district. In addition, a greater effort can be made to offer such opportunities at |
|a greater variety of locations, including school sites (in classrooms, labs or libraries), the District offices, and on-line. Similarly, there is |
|still a need to more frequently and consistently provide stipends, compensation, or incentives (such as sub-rate, hourly stipend, lump sum, salary|
|credit, certificate of completion, opportunities for Continuing Education Units, professional growth hours, bought prep periods for grades 6-12, |
|conferences, software, etc.) for participants. Also, the needs for leveled classes (beginner, intermediate and advanced users), follow-up training|
|(including peer coaching and classroom modeling), and conduct post-training assessments remain. Technology Lead Teachers are not currently |
|identified at all sites, so there is still a need for site based technology coaches. |
|The applicant certifies that the information described above is accurate as of the date of this document. Should the applicant be selected |
|for a random EETT review, the information stated above will be supported by adequate supporting documentation. |
| |
|As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, I hereby certify that the applicant will comply with the above certifications. |
| |
| |
|For CDE Use Only |
| |
|Date Added: ____________________ |
| |
|Selected For Random Review: __________________________ |
| |
|Comments: |
| |
| |
|Frank Tinney |
| |
| |
|Senior Director of Educational Services |
| |
| |
| |
|SIGNATURE DATE |
| |
District Profile
The Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) is located in the Coachella Valley, which is approximately 110 miles east of Los Angeles and 120 miles northeast of San Diego, in Riverside County, the fastest growing county in California. A team of more than 1,800 outstanding employees is providing a quality education to the students and families of Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and Thousand Palms. Currently PSUSD has fifteen elementary schools, four middle schools, three comprehensive high schools, one continuation high school, one independent study program, eight headstart/state preschools, three full-day headstart programs, four childcare programs, and an extensive adult education program. In striving to meet the needs of a diverse student body, the District provides a wide array of programs, including Special Education, instruction for English Language Learners (ELL), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), Advanced Placement (AP), Career Technical Education (CTE), school-to work transition, athletics, and many other services.
The following data from the Ed Data and Dataquest web sites[1] offers a snapshot of the District during the 2005-06 school year.
Figure 1 below depicts the number of schools, enrollment, full-time equivalent teachers, and pupil-teacher ratio district-wide for the elementary, middle, high school, and continuation levels. Figure 2 indicates the ethnicity of PSUSD students. Figure 3 provides additional information about PSUSD students and teachers.
|Palm Springs Unified School District, 2005-06 School Data |
| |
| | | |
| |Enrollment |Percent of Total |
|American Indian |178 |0.8% |
|Asian |235 |1.0% |
|Pacific Islander |61 |0.3% |
|Filipino |551 |2.3% |
|Hispanic |16,180 |68.3% |
|African American |1,260 |5.3% |
|White |5,224 |22.1% |
|Multiple/No Response |0 |0.0% |
|Total |23,689 |100% |
Figure 2. Palm Springs USD 2005-06 Student Ethnicity
| |
|Palm Springs Unified District, Student & Teacher Data 2005-06 |
|English Learners |8,076 |
|Fluent-English-Proficient Students |5,152 |
|Students Redesignated FEP |964 |
|Graduates (prior year) |1,049 |
|UC/CSU Elig Grads (prior year) |265 |
|Dropouts (prior year, grade 9-12) |440 |
|1 Yr Drop Rate (prior year, grade 9-12) |6.5% |
|4 Yr Drop Rate (prior year, grade 9-12) |24.9% |
|% Fully Credentialed Teachers |93.1% |
|Pupil Teacher Ratio |22.7 |
|Avg. Class Size |30.3 |
|Free or Reduced Price Meals |17,209 |
Figure 3. Palm Springs USD 2005-06 Student & Teacher Data
Overview
This section of the plan provides an overview of the document and the process used to create it. In addition definitions of terms appear in this section, including a working definition of technology.
Scope of Plan
This updated three-year plan outlines needs, current resources, and goals for the following areas of technology use and support:
1. Plan Duration
2. Stakeholders
3. Curriculum
4. Professional Development
5. Infrastructure, Hardware, Technical Support and Software
6. Funding and Budget
7. Monitoring and Evaluation
8. Effective Collaboration with Adult Literacy Providers to Maximize the Use of Technology
9. Effective Research-Based Methods, Strategies and Criteria
These areas of the plan are based on the document, Criteria for EETT-Funded Education
Technology Plans (California Department of Education, 2004).
Needs Assessment
In March 2006, all the schools completed the State Technology Survey. These surveys plus information from site technology coordinators at our regular meetings and information from the California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) provided us with the basis for a general needs assessment for the use of technology in the Palm Springs Unified School District.
Mission Statement
The highly trained and effective staff of Palm Springs Unified School District, in partnership with our students, their families, and the community, will provide each student with the most appropriate educational opportunities in a safe, secure environment, so that all students can achieve their full potential as contributing members of the community.
Technology Vision Statement
The vision for the role of technology within the Palm Springs Unified School District embraces the following statements:
• The appropriate use of technology is a powerful tool for improving instruction and student learning.
• The acquisition of technology and information literacy skills is embedded within the normal course of instruction of the content standards.
• All students have equal access to technology.
• Technology is an integral part of student records, assessment and data analysis.
• Technology promotes improved communication among teachers, parents, students, administrators and the community.
Students, teachers and administrators use technology to access current and relevant information. Students use technology to assist them in meeting state and district curriculum standards. Teachers use technology in the delivery of curriculum, assessing student progress made toward meeting standards, record keeping, for communications with the community and for meeting the needs of diverse learners. Administrators use technology for school management (including record keeping), for communications with the community, and for the analysis of student data to assure that there is student progress towards meeting state and district standards. Teachers and administrators also use technology as tools for furthering their knowledge and abilities.
The District Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) strongly recommends the formation of a Technology Leadership Team at each school site. Teams would include teachers, the administrator, library personnel, and parents. The purpose of this team is to plan and monitor the use of technology to support curriculum and instruction at the school site. They will also assist in the site implementation of the District Technology Plan.
Technology Definition
The Palm Springs Unified School District uses technology in its instructional program and in the administration of the District. Technology is defined as the tools and machines used to perform tasks efficiently. In education, the focus is on using the most appropriate technology and applications to support quality teaching and learning. Such equipment includes but is not limited to:
• Computers
• Digital cameras (still, video, microscopic)
• Inter and intra district network routers and servers
• Interactive white boards or tablets
• Handheld computers (including gaming devices and mobile phones)
• Electronic keyboard devices
• Portable audio devices
• Video technologies such as video conferencing, video streaming, broadcast video
• Computer-based probeware
• Internet access and email servers
• Equipment to access telephone and voice services
Definition of Terms
Adult Learner: Persons eighteen years of age and older are eligible to enroll in adult education programs. Also eligible are (1) minors, regardless of age, who are pregnant or are actively engaged in the parenting of his or her child or children; (2) high school students who are eligible for enrollment in adult education programs; and (3) students who are exempt from compulsory continuation education as prescribed by law.
AMO: Annual Measurable Objective. Created as a part of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the AMO are the incremental targets set that start in 2001-02 and end in 2013-14. In that year, every child will have achieved proficiency or advance proficiency on the California Standards Test (CST). This would be for English/language arts and math for all grades, history for high school and science for 5th and 10th grade.
API: Academic Performance Index. The API measures the academic performance and
progress of schools. Annual growth targets for future academic improvement are determined for
schools based on how far each school is from the statewide target. It is a numeric index or scale
that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. The state has set 800 as the API score that
schools should strive to meet.
AYP: Adequate Yearly Progress. The NCLB Act of 2001 requires that California determine
whether or not each public school and local educational agency (LEA) is making Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP). The AYP criteria encompass four areas: participation rate, percent
proficient (AMO), academic performance index (API) and graduation rate.
Big6: The Big6 is a process model of how people solve an information problem. It was
developed by Mike Eisenberg and Bob Berkowitz. The Big6 integrates information search and
use skills along with technology tools in a systematic process to find, use, apply and evaluate
information for specific needs and tasks.
Blogging: A weblog (usually shortened to blog, but occasionally spelled web log) is a web-based
publication consisting primarily of periodic articles (normally in reverse chronological order).
Although most early weblogs were manually updated, tools to automate the maintenance of such
sites made them accessible to a much larger population, and the use of some sort of browser-
based software is now a typical aspect of "blogging".
BTSA: Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment System, “In accordance with Education
Code section 44259(c), induction programs may be offered by school districts, county offices of
education, and/or institutions of higher education. Section 44279.2(c) of the Education Code
allows local education agencies to apply for and receive state funding to support induction
programs through the BTSA System, a program that is administered jointly by the California
Department of Education (CDE) and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC).” ()
CTAP9 Online: Online courses designed for educators by educators. Instruction includes
everything from basic computer skills and Internet use to developing standards-based lessons.
Level I Technology Proficiency: Level I Technology Proficiency ensures that users can
successfully demonstrate basic skills in word processing, databases, spreadsheets, multi-media
presentations, email and the Internet. During professional development for Level I certification, administrators and teachers will also begin to use specific productivity tools to make data-driven
decisions and improve two-way communication between home and school.
Level II Technology Proficiency: Level II Technology Proficiency is specific to the application
of educational technology skills in an educational setting. This includes customizing the
curriculum to enhance its relevance and value, improving student access to relevant technologies,
teaching and using information literacy skills, making data-driven decisions and improving two-
way communication between home and school.
Level III Technology Proficiency: Level III Technology Proficiency is a mentor/leadership
proficiency. Level III certification is for administrators and teachers that will be providing
professional development to educators seeking Level I and Level II Technology Proficiency.
Level III certified administrators and teachers will also certify those that complete Level I and
Level II Technology Proficiency.
Multiple Measures: The many different types of assessments for each content area and at each
grade span administered to each student.
Podcasting: a term used to describe a collection of technologies for automatically distributing
audio and video programs over the Internet using a publisher/subscriber model. It differs from
earlier online collections of audio or video material because it automatically transfers materials
to the user's computer for later consumption; it is one example of push technology.
Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence: This document (see Appendix E) lays out the technology skills students will work to master. The skills are arranged by general grouping such as word processing or spreadsheets and also by grade level.
TOSA: Teacher on Special Assignment. This is a title given to classroom teachers that are
pulled out of the classroom to head up or lead specific areas of focus. For this plan, TOSAs are
those classroom teachers whose full time focus is on technology. This can be either at the school
site or district level.
1. Plan Duration
This section of the plan describes the duration of the plan.
1a. The plan should guide the district’s use of education technology for the next three to five years.
This technology plan will provide the District with a road map for the use of technology to support improved student learning. This support will encompass increased student access to (and use of) technology, improved home-school communication, effective analysis of data, powerful professional development for teachers and administrators, timely technical support, improved infrastructure, expanded funding efforts, and continuous monitoring. A District Educational Technology Advisory Committee has been established to provide continuous monitoring of the plan so that adjustments can be made to allow for meeting the plan’s goals. An annual report to the board will be given, keeping the District’s leadership apprised of the plan’s status.
The Palm Springs Unified School District Educational Technology Plan will be in effect from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010, a total of three years.
2. Stakeholders
This section of the plan describes the planning process and the stakeholders that took part in the process. This section also explains the design and implementation roles of various stakeholders.
2a. Description of how a variety of stakeholders from within the school district and the community-at-large participated in the planning process.
Our District Educational Technology Planning Team was comprised of district, site and community representatives. This team will evolve into the District Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) to monitor and guide the implementation of the plan, and revise as needed. The ETAC will consist of district curriculum, business service, and technology staff, site administrators, site media specialists, site coaches, teachers, parents, students and the community (i.e. partners in higher education, community non-profit groups, government agencies, and local businesses).
The Planning Process
A planning team was convened to revise the 2002-2007 District Technology Plan. An outside consultant was hired to facilitate the process. The planning team members consisted of district, site and community representatives (see below for details). A wiki was used to draft the plan. The wiki allowed all stakeholders to have immediate access to the plan draft as it developed, as well as access to provide ongoing input and updates.
The planning team members met together during the late fall of 2006 to develop a vision for the plan and to answer guiding questions from the California Department of Education Technology Planning Guide which facilitated the plan’s development. The team members then met in planning subgroups with the outside consultant and the District Educational Technology Specialist to develop the plan’s goals and objectives. During the writing of the draft two community forums were held to present the draft of the plan and solicit additional input from stakeholders that were not on the planning team. All stakeholders were invited to give input through the wiki at anytime during the planning process. A drafted plan was then presented again to the whole planning team for input. A revised draft was written, presented to the team again for approval and submitted to Cabinet and the Governing Board for approval.
Stakeholders involved in the process:
• Developed the plan’s vision to support student learning in a 21st century contxt
• Constructed the goals and objectives required to support student learning and achievement in a 21st century context.
• Evaluated the draft technology plan and made adjustments as needed.
• Gathered and evaluated district technology data with regard to hardware, wiring, resources, professional development and projects.
• Collected and analyzed survey, technology, and student achievement data.
• Identified and referenced common technology needs and issues.
Stakeholders Involved in The Process
District Technology Planning Team (to be known as ETAC)
The District Technology Planning Team’s roles and responsibilities will evolve to include the oversight and implementation of the plan. The plan implementation progress will be monitored, reviewed and revised by a newly formed District Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC). The design and implementation roles of members is outlined below.
District Curriculum Personnel
• Superintendent
• Senior Directors of Curriculum
• Director of Standards, Assessment and Accountability
• Director of State and Federal Programs
• Director of English Language Learners
• Coordinator of English Language Learners
• Coordinator of Career and Technical Education
• Coordinator of Professional Development
• Coordinator of Special Education
• Special Education Assistant Technology Specialist
• K-5 and 6-12 Math Specialists
• K-12 Science Specialist
• Gifted and Talented Education Program Specialist
• Educational Technology Specialist
Design & Implementation Roles: Provide the overall coordination and oversight of the technology planning process. Coordination will include the implementation of the goals and objectives set forth in this plan to the integrate technology to meet core curriculum goals, including the identification of funding resources. Oversight of the plan will include monitoring of implementation acitivites to enable adjustments to be made as needed to provide the learning environment to enable students to achieve 21st century skills.
District Technology Personnel
• Director of Information Technology
• Data Systems Manager
• Network Manager (Tech IV)
• Tech II
Design & Implementation Roles: Provide information and oversight to guide the infrastructure implementation plan and issues.
District Financial Personnel
• Director Fiscal Services and staff
Design & Implementation Roles: Provide coordination and oversight of technology funds and budget issues.
Site Administration
• Site Principals and Assistant Principals
Design & Implementation Roles: Provide site-based updates on tech plan implementation and needs; monitor teacher performance and student learning in technology-rich environments; make adjustments based on teacher and student performance to support the effective application of technology to meet the goals of the technology plan; ensure the effective use of digital resources, research-based best practices and instructional programs; provide input on how technology can better support the teaching of standards-aligned academic objectives.
Site Coaches/ Teachers/ Library Media Specialists
Design & Implementation Roles: Provide site-based updates on tech plan implementation and needs; provide site based training support; provide input on efforts, outcomes, and needs to support the implementation of the plan to meet district curricular goals.
Parents / Students
Design & Implementation Roles: Provide input on the district and schools’ efforts to integrate technology and 21st century skills in the standards-aligned curriculum.
Government Agencies
• Representative from the California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP) Region 10
Design & Implementation Roles: Offer technical assistance with the data analyses and revision of our goals and objectives; professional development planning and implementation; funding opportunities and guidelines; compliance issues; hardware, software, and infrastructure planning.
Community Groups
• City/ County Librarians/ Representatives from the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership
Design & Implementation Roles: Offer assistance with the implementation of the tech plan objectives focused on improving technology equity, access, after school opportunities, and 21st skills.
Consultant, Educational Technology and Life Corporation
Design & Implementation Roles: Facilitate planning process and authoring of the plan; provide “fresh” expanded, perspectives to consider for implementation.
The Palm Springs Unified School District continues to seek out input, advice and assistance from all stakeholders to help meet the goals and objectives of this three year plan. The District will post the completed plan on its website once approved by the California Department of Education.
3. Curriculum
This section is the heart of the District technology plan. It begins by providing a description of teachers’ and students’ current access to technology tools, both during the school day and outside of school hours. This is followed by a Description of the district’s current use of hardware and software to support teaching and learning. In light of this needs assessment, the remainder of the section lays out the curriculum-driven technology goals that will guide planning and implementation for the duration of this plan.
The goals presented in this section align with the district’s curricular goals, academic content standards, and comprehensive planning documents. Specific goals include those for using technology to improve teaching and learning, and those for describing how and when students will acquire technological and information literacy skills needed to succeed in the classroom and workplace. In addition, District goals for ensuring appropriate access to technology for all students are established, including a commitment to pilot programs in which students can take advantage of a 1-to-1 student-to-computer ratio. Goals are also included that will drive the use of technology for data-driven decision making and for making teachers and administrators more accessible to parents.
This section concludes with a plan to establish an Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating this plan. As an extension of the ETAC, technology coaches are also established at each school site, based on the successful coaching model piloted in the EETT competitive grant programs at the District’s middle schools.
The goals presented in this section are the driving force behind the professional development, infrastructure, and funding sections that follow.
3a. Description of teachers’ and students’ current access to technology tools both during the school day and outside of school hours.
The following describes the technology access available for all students (including special education, GATE, and English Language Learners) in classrooms, library/media centers, or computer labs - both during and after school hours. Access to appropriate site-based technology resources has been evaluated through district inventory records and the annual California School Tech Survey data. The 2005-06 data has been summarized below.
According to the most current California Technology Survey and district records, the District student to computer ratio for computers four years old or newer is 7.01:1. All teachers at all 24 K-12 schools in the District have access to a minimum of one multi-media computer with Internet access in their classrooms as well as in their Library/Media Centers, and/ or Computer Labs, before, during, and after school hours. All schools can schedule before and/ or after school access to computer programs and the Internet as needed for students to complete classroom activities.
100% of District school sites are connected to the Internet, with 99% of all classrooms connected to the Internet. Figure 4 below indicates the locations of District computers. As Figure 5 illustrates, most computers in the District are more than four years old and must be replaced to simply maintain the current student-to-computer ratio. In addition to the technical support that the District provides, as detailed in the Infrastructure Section, school sites have used outside vendors, students, volunteers and county offices to a marginal degree, as depicted in Figure 6. As the Figure 7 describes, in-house, site-based curriculum support can come from a number of sources, but it is virtually non-existent and is far from universal in all schools. The raw data used to generate the figures in this section are included in Appendix B.
[pic]
Figure 4. Numbers of Computers Per Type of Location
[pic]
Figure 5. Numbers of Computers Per Age Category.
[pic]
Figure 6. Site-Based Technical Support (In Average FTE Per Site)
[pic]
Figure 7. Site-Based Curriculum Support (By Average FTE Per Site)
3b. Description of the district’s current use of hardware and software to support teaching and learning.
A summary of data collected from the 2006 California Technology Survey, the 2006 EdTech Profile Technology Proficiency Assessment Survey and District reports follows. This data describes how administrators, teachers and students use technology for a range of tasks to support teaching and learning.
Administrators Technology Use
The data below indicates that the majority of the District administrators actively use technology daily for a range of tasks. The use of technology to support data driven decision-making has increased over the past five years due to the use of student assessment tools, including Edusoft, Data Director, and Zangle - the District student information system. Administrators also use Galaxy, the District's financial, purchasing and personnel management system, to manage budgets and track purchases. A few administrators are learning to be proficient users of Microsoft Excel to enable them to manipulate and analyze data more efficiently.
[pic]
Figure 8. Administrator Technology Use
All District staff have eMail access to support communications with colleagues, parents and students. Microsoft Outlook Exchange provides the e-mail features, complete with calendars for scheduling purposes, plus access to a District address book. All District employees have web access to their eMail to enable them to use the system from any location with Internet access at any time. Administrator and teacher access is recorded in the chart below. It should be noted that all District full-time teachers have access to eMail, but teachers employed by the county - such as ROP, do not......(Note to Lee - double check this with Will or Wayne)
[pic]
Figure 9. eMail Access
Please see section for 4a for additional discussion and figures related to administrator technology use.
Teacher Technology Use: Curriculum Planning and Delivery
Districtwide, technology applications are most often used in reading/language arts and mathematics, but generally not daily or weekly. In all subject areas, 19% (reading/ language arts) to 30% (science) of teachers report using technology less than monthly or never.
[pic]
Figure 10. Frequency of Technology Use in Core Subjects
Most teachers across the District use technology to create materials and gather information for lessons, as the following figures illustrates.
[pic]
Figure 11. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers For Preparation
The frequency of technology use to deliver the curriculum varies widely. Thirty-seven percent of the teachers reported frequent use of at least 2-4 times per week, but 20% reported never using technology to deliver curriculum.
[pic]
Figure 12. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers For Instruction
Technology applications that are most frequently used by teachers for classroom instruction are computers and peripherals, Internet, and eMail. A growing number of teachers also use video-based presentation devices. This is largely due to the acquistions of LCD projectors, document cameras, wireless electronic schoolpads, and video-streaming programs, such as unitedstreaming and BrainPop. A complete listing of District software and hardware resources can be found in the Infrastructure section.
Implications for training, which will be addressed in the Professional Development Section, are also evident by the data reported below.
[pic]
Figure 13. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers For Instruction (By Application)
A breakdown of the 2006 EdTechProfile Technology Proficiency Survey data by elementary, middle, and high schools gives a more complete picture of the frequency of technology use by teachers to deliver the curriculum. The data in the following tables show that the frequency of technology use is higher in the secondary schools. The high use of technology in the middle schools may be largely attributable to the influence of the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) Competitive Grant which funded technology applications in the mathematics classrooms, grades 6-8. Two of the middle schools were funded in the 2005-2006 school year and their technology use would be reflected in the data below. The other two middle schools were funded in 2006-2007, so an increase in frequency of technology use is expected to be reflected in the 2007 data for the middle schools. The momentum that was generated from the EETT Competitive program has affected an increase of technology use in other subject areas in the middle schools as evidenced by District records, such as purchase orders.
Frequency of Teacher Use of Technology Applications to Support Classroom Instruction: Comparisons Between School Classifications
Planning and Curriculum Delivery
|Create instructional |Daily |2-4 days a week |Between once a week |Less than monthly |Never |
|materials | | |and monthly | | |
|Elementary |19% |36% |26% |11% |9% |
|Middle School |40% |32% |17% |7% |3% |
|High School |42% |31% |17% |6% |4% |
| | | | | | |
|Elementary |12% |30% |33% |13% |12% |
|Middle School |33% |33% |22% |7% |4% |
|High School |33% |31% |21% |10% |6% |
| | | | | | |
|Elementary |8% |21% |32% |21% |18% |
|Middle School |22% |27% |27% |17% |7% |
|High School |22% |24% |31% |13% |10% |
| | | | | | |
|Elementary |5% |17% |27% |22% |29% |
|Middle School |35% |22% |16% |15% |12% |
|High School |23% |26% |29% |13% |9% |
Figure 14. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers (By Application and School Type)
Teacher Technology Use: Data Management
Most teachers across the District use technology to manage student attendance and grades. This is because of the implementation of the Zangle, student information systems which enables all teachers to keep grades online - a District expectation for all teachers. The system also enables all secondary teachers to use an electronic gradebook to record and post student grades. Most secondary teachers post their final grades using the system. Some secondary teachers use the electronic gradebook to record grades as well.
Edusoft has been used as the online student assessment system until this year when Data Director was purchased. When surveyed, 46% teachers responded that they do not use an online student assessment system to make decisions in lesson design - a statistic that has implications for training.
[pic]
Figure 15. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers to Manage and Apply Data
All teachers use the Zangle Student Information System to keep attendance. However, only secondary schools use the Zangle gradebook feature to post and record grades. A standards-based report card that can be posted electronically is planned for the elementary schools.
Frequency of Data Management By School Type
|Manage student grades |Daily |2-4 days a week |Between once a week |Less than monthly |Never |
|and attendance | | |and monthly | | |
|Elementary |54% |12% |14% |6% |14% |
|Middle School |76% |14% |5% |3% |2% |
|High School |79% |9% |4% |4% |4% |
| | | | | | |
|Elementary |7% |9% |14% |10% |60% |
|Middle School |53% |14% |18% |7% |9% |
|High School |58% |12% |9% |8% |14% |
| | | | | | |
|Elementary |4% |9% |28% |18% |42% |
|Middle School |12% |8% |19% |17% |44% |
|High School |10% |5% |16% |14% |56% |
Figure 16. Frequency of Data Management By School Type.
Teacher Technology Use: Communications
Teachers very frequently communicate with their colleagues online. Seventy-two percent of teachers communicate with their colleagues at least every two to four days and 50% communicate daily. In addition to communicating within the District, teachers also communicate with parents and students. Sixty percent of teachers communicate with parents and students online at least monthly. Forty-five percent of teachers post to a school web site with class related information. Some teachers have created and maintain their own web sites for home to school communications. Most teachers that post to a website use the District's Zangle ParentConnection feature, which is linked to the student information system with its attendance records and gradebook.
[pic]
Figure 17. Frequency of Technology Use By Teachers to Communicate
When looking at the frequency of communications by school classification, it is clear that the secondary school teachers communicate much more frequently both with colleagues and with parent and students. As the data shows, the middle schools communicate the most which may be due to the influence of the EETT Competitive Grant program. Since home-to-school communication is a major component of the EETT Competitive program, the middle schools received the first wave of training and support to implement Zangle's ParentConnection in 2006. In addition, because of the grant's guidelines, home-to-school communication strategies have been part of the professional development offered to the 6-8 mathematics teachers. Another explanation is that one of the middle schools has had a five year history of using online tools and web postings to communicate which was set as an expectation by the school administration.
Frequency of Communications By School Classification
|Communicate with |Daily |2-4 days a week |Between once a week |Less than monthly |Never |
|colleagues | | |and monthly | | |
|Elementary |30% |25% |18% |12% |15% |
|Middle School |76% |17% |4% |1% |1% |
|High School |65% |17% |12% |3% |3% |
| | | | | | |
|Elementary |5% |13% |28% |16% |37% |
|Middle School |31% |22% |26% |10% |11% |
|High School |24% |22% |29% |13% |12% |
| | | | | | |
|Elementary |8% |9% |13% |6% |63% |
|Middle School |38% |14% |15% |10% |23% |
|High School |25% |14% |16% |12% |33% |
Figure 18. Frequency of Communications By School Classification.
Please see section for 4a for additional discussion and figures related to teacher technology use.
Student Technology Use
Twenty-seven percent of District teachers assign students work that uses computers at least 2-4 days per week and 20% of the students use the Internet at least 2-4 days a week. By contrast, 30% of District teachers do not assign student work that uses computers and 37% of District teachers do not assign students work that uses the Internet. When comparing computer use between elementary, middle and high schools, 65% of elementary teachers, 68% of middle school teachers, and 80% of high school teachers assign students work that requires the use of computers to some degree. When comparing Internet use, 51% of elementary teachers, 69% of middle school teachers, and 80% of high school teachers assign student work that requires the use of the Internet to some degree.
[pic]
Figure 19. Frequency of Technology Use By Students For Instruction
When comparing computer use between elementary, middle and high schools, 65% of elementary teachers, 68% of middle school teachers, and 80% of high school teachers assign students work that requires the use of computers to some degree. When comparing Internet use, 51% of elementary teachers, 69% of middle school teachers, and 80% of high school teachers assign student work that requires the use of the Internet to some degree.
Frequency of Student Use of Technologies for Learning: Comparisons By School Classifications
|Computers and |Daily |2-4 days a week |Between once a |Less than monthly|Available, but I |No Access |
|peripherals | | |week and monthly | |never use it | |
|Elementary |13% |16% |22% |14% |23% |12% |
|Middle School |13% |6% |18% |31% |17% |15% |
|High School |16% |14% |28% |22% |13% |7% |
| | | | | | | |
|Middle School |10% |10% |19% |20% |21% |19% |
|High School |6% |12% |23% |25% |20% |14% |
| | | | | | | |
|Middle School |4% |3% |6% |13% |34% |39% |
|High School |5% |4% |14% |23% |25% |30% |
| | | | | | | |
|Middle School |11% |7% |25% |26% |19% |13% |
|High School |15% |13% |30% |22% |13% |7% |
| | | | | | | |
|Middle School |11% |4% |9% |11% |30% |35% |
|High School |11% |19% |23% |31% |3% |11% |
| | | | | | | |
|Middle School |4% |5% |6% |7% |17% |60% |
|High School |4% |2% |5% |7% |15% |66% |
Figure 20. Frequency of Student Use of Technologies for Learning: Comparisons.
Data collected from the 2006 California Technology School Survey described the frequency of student use of technology to gather, organize, display information at the site level. Each site reported the level that students use technology at their site to apply learning. For example, 8 schools indicated that 75% - 100% of the students at their site used technology for word processing. Another 8 schools indicated that 50% to 75% of their students use word processing and finally another 8 schools reported that 25%-50% of their students used word processing. There were 24 schools reporting altogether. So, at all sites word processing was an activity that at least 25% of the students engaged in. The learning activities that were most likely to be used in all schools to some degree were word processing, accessing content-specific resources, research using the Internet or CD ROMS, and creating or writing reports.
[pic]
Figure 21. Student Technology Use
The following charts depict the frequency of student use reported on the 2006 California Technology Survey by school site levels: elementary, middle, and high. This data analysis with the previously described reports has been used and will continue to be used and updated to inform technology planning decisions.[2]
[pic]
Figure 22. Student Technology Use: Elementary School
[pic]
Figure 23. Student Technology Use: Middle School
[pic]
Figure 24. Student Technology Use: High School
Technology Career Pathways
During 2002-2007 there were several technology courses offered at high schools throughout the District which included Keyboarding, Computer Literacy, Cisco Networking, Computer Programing, Computer Applications, and PC Tech Repair; however, due to insufficient student enrollment over the past two years, some of these classes are no longer offered at the high schools.
During the 2006-07 school year, Keyboarding, Computer Literacy, Key-Write-Byte, PC Tech Repair and ROP Computer Applications are still offered at the high schools. Perkins funds were spent during the 2006-07 school year to up date the PC Tech Program with 35 new computers. The ROP Computer Applicatons course is offered through the Riverside County Office of Education and students are able to test in Microsoft Certification Exams at the culmination of the class.
Future technology courses in the district depends upon student interest and enrollment and the deveopment of career pathways that ensure a coherent sequence of classes that leads to certification and/or post-secondary education.
The District has hired a Coordinator of Career Technical Education who works directly with the Coachella Valley Economic Parnership (CVEP) which is a supporting network of business and industry leaders in the Coachella Valley. The implementation of technology will be included in most of the Career Pathways which currently include a Money, Marketing, and Management Partnership Academy, a Health Careers Pathway, a Digital Arts Technology Academy (DATA), a Multi-Media Academy, a Fine Arts Pathway, an Architecture Construction Education (ACE) Pathway, a Hospitality Careers Pathway (Cafe' Ramon) and others that are in the planning stages for 2007-2010.
The District will continue to explore which classes, if any, in the above career pathways will meet the District's Computer Literacy requirement.
3c. Summary of the district’s curricular goals and academic content standards in various district and site comprehensive planning documents.
District Strategic Goals (District Strategic Plan 2007)
The following strategic goals have been established for the District during the process of creating a new District strategic plan.
• Strategic Goal 1 - Core Academic Subjects: All students in the Palm Spring Unified School District will meet grade level proficiency in standards in the core academic subjects, English language arts, math, social studies and science as measued by the annual California Standards Test (CST).
• Strategic Goal 2 - ELL: All English Language Learners in the Palm Springs Unified School District will advance one level per year in English language proficiency as measured by the annual California English Language Development Test (CELDT).
• Strategic Goal 3 - Attendance: The ultimate attendance goal in the Palm Springs Unified School District is for all students to attend school every day. There is a definite link between attendance and academic achievement. In addition, the District is significantly fiscally impacted as attendance increases or decreases. Beginning the 2008-2009 school year, all elementary schools will have at least 96.0% attendance rates, all middle and hgh schools will have at least 95.0% attendance rates.
These current District strategic goals are aligned with the performance goals established in the Local Education Agency (LEA) plan for 2003-2008. Each performance goal and any technology related planned improvements are listed below.
Performance Goals (LEA Plan 2003-2008)
The following performance goals were established for the most recent District LEA plan.
• Performance Goal 1: All students will reach high standards, at a minimum, attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics, by 2013-2014.
o Planned Improvemen #4 (in Language Arts and in Math): Increased Access to Technology.
• Performance Goal 2: All limited-English-proficient students will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.
o Planned Improvement #9: Improve the instruction of LEP children by providing for the acquisition or development of educational technology or instructional materials.
• Performance Goal 3: By 2005-06, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers.
o Planned Improvement #6: Multi-stakeholder groups and the Technology Information Services Team will ensure that professional development activities address technology-related professional development activities that are coordinated to address staff needs in assisting all students to meet or exceed State academic achievement standards in alignment with the district Technology Plan.
o Planned Improvement #7: (a.) All teachers and administrators will receive training in using the district’s new student information system and the new standards-based data analysis system. (b.) Access to online professional development will be available to teachers to support standards-based and curriculum based instruction. (c.) The district Technology Information Services Team will continue to provide professional development in the use of data analysis and systems software for teachers, paraprofessionals and administrators.
• Performance Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning.
• Performance Goal 5: All students will graduate from high school.
This technology plan also fulfills the Title II, Part D assurance included in the LEA Plan; the LEA has an updated, local, long-range, strategic, educational technology plan in place.
3d. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan for using technology to improve teaching and learning by supporting the district curricular goals and academic content standards.
The following goals and objectives have been developed by the Educational Technology Planning Committee to guide the implementation of technology to improve teaching and learning by supporting the district curricular goals and academic content standards. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee will monitor progress toward these goals, evaluate their effectiveness, and modify them as necessary (see section 3j).
3d.1. Goal - All students will use technology to support their mastery of district and state academic standards.
3d.1.1. Objective 1 - ELA: All students will use technology to support their mastery of standards in English Language Arts, as measured by the California Standards Test (CST).
• Baseline 2005-2006: 31% proficient or above.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 34.0%
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 45.0%
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 56.0%
3d.1.2. Objective 2 - Math: All students will use technology to support their mastery of standards in Mathematics, as measured by the California Standards Test (CST).
• Baseline 2005-2006: 29% proficient or above.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 34.6%
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 45.5%
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 56.4%
3d.1.3. Objective 3 - ELL: All English Language Learners will use technology to support their advancement of one level per year in English language proficiency as measured by the annual California English Language Development Test (CELDT).[3]
• Baseline 2005-2006: 45% of ELL students advanced one or more levels.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 54.1%
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 55.8%
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 57.4%
3d.1.4. Objective 4 - Attendance: All students will be engaged in learning through the use of technology and thus be more motivated to attend school, as measured by attendance rates.[4]
Elementary Attendance:
• Baseline 2005-2006: 94.5%
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 95%
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 95.5%
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 96%
Middle School Attendance:
• Baseline 2005-2006: 94%
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 94.5%
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 95%
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 95.5%
High School Attendance:
• Baseline 2005-2006: 93.5%
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 94%
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 94.5%
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 95%
Implementation Plan:
1. Each year, purchase as needed and verify teacher use of the appropriate state-adopted instructional materials, standards-aligned textbooks and supplemental curriculum-based technology resources.
2. Each year, provide professional development for standards-aligned adopted curriculum and educational technology resources.[5]
3. Each year, provide administrators and teachers professional development to align the content standards, Level I and Level II Technology Proficiency and the District’s Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence.
4. Each year, provide Level I and Level II Technology Proficiency professional development as needed to ensure that technology is effectively integrated into E/LA curriculum.[6]
5. Each year, monitor instructional time for appropriate state-adopted instructional materials, standards-aligned textbooks and supplemental curriculum-based technology resources.
6. Each year, provide shared network storage and online space (such as wikis) for teachers to develop and share technology resources and instructional strategies that both align with academic standards.
7. Each year, provide shared network storage and online space (such as wikis) for teachers to develop and share engaging and motivating technology resources and instructional strategies (in order to encourage better attendance among students),
8. Each year, use technology, particularly Zangle, to monitor attendance and to make attendance records accessible to parents
9. Each year, In addition to the focus on classroom instruction, the District will continue to expand its existing online course offerings to alternative education and regular education high school students.
3d.2. Goal - All students will use technology to support their development of 21st Century Learning Skills, as identified in enGauge: 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners.[7]
3d.2.1 Objective 1 - All students will use technology to support their development of 21st Century Skills, as measured by the District 21st Century Skills Survey distributed to a representative and statistically significant sample of students.
• Baseline 2005-2006: No baseline.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Develop strategies for integrating 21st Century Skills into the curriculum for all grade levels. Develop 21st Century Skills Survey to measure implementation of the strategies.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Implement 21st Century Skills strategies at all grade levels. Implement 21st Century Skills Survey. Establish baseline data and establish benchmarks for 2009-2010.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Continue implementing and improving 21st Century Skills strategies for all grade levels. Continue implementing 21st Century Skills Survey. Meet Digital Age Literacy benchmarks established in 2008-2009.
Implementation Plan:
1. In 2007-2008, the Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) establishes grade level and subject area curriculum committees to develop strategies.
2. In 2007-2008, grade level and subject area curriculum committees develop and pilot strategies.
3. In 2007-2008, in The ETAC review and approve strategies developed by curriculum committees, and then present the strategies to the Instructional Council for review and approval.
4. In 2007-2008, cabinet review and approve strategies approved by ETAC and Instructional Council.
5. In 2007-2008, the Educational Technology Specialist, in collaboration with other members of the ETAC, develops the District 21st Century Skills Survey to measure implementation of the strategies.
6. In 2008-2009, technology coaches receive professional development in the implementation of the strategies.[8]
7. In 2008-2009, the technology coaches implement the strategies in their classrooms and provide professional development for other teachers at their site.
8. In 2008-2009, teachers implement the strategies in their classrooms.
9. In 2008-2009, the ETAC, with the help of technology coaches, administers the District 21st Century Skills Survey to a representative and statistically significant sample of students.
10. In 2009-2010, technology coaches will receive professional development in the implementation of the strategies, including any changes as necessary.
11. In 2009-2010, the technology coaches implement the strategies in their classrooms and provide professional development for other teachers at their site.
12. In 2009-2010, teachers implement the strategies in their classrooms.
13. In 2009-2010, the ETAC, with the help of technology coaches. administers the District 21st Century Skills Survey to a representative and statistically significant sample of students.
3e. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan detailing how and when students will acquire technology and information literacy skills needed to succeed in the classroom and the workplace.
The following goals and objectives have been developed by the Educational Technology Planning Committee to guide the implementation of instruction to help students acquire technology and information literacy skills needed to succeed in the classroom and the workplace. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee will monitor progress toward these goals, evaluate their effectiveness, and modify them as necessary (see section 3j).
3e.1. Goal - All students will master the technology skills identified in the District Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence.[9]
3e.1.1. Objective 1 - All students will master the technology skills identified in the District Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence, as measured by the passing rate of computer literacy classes and the District computer literacy exam.[10]
• Baseline 2006: All high school graduates have passed a computer literacy class or passed the District computer literacy exam. 31.4% of ninth graders have passed a computer literacy class or passed the District computer literacy exam.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: All high school graduates will have passed a computer literacy class or passed the District computer literacy exam.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: All high school graduates will have passed a computer literacy class or passed the District computer literacy exam. 50% of ninth graders will have passed a computer literacy class or passed the District computer literacy exam.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: All high school graduates will have passed a computer literacy class or passed the District computer literacy exam 60% of ninth graders will have passed a computer literacy class or passed the District computer literacy exam.
Implementation Plan:
1. Each year, teachers receive professional development on strategies for incorporating skills from the scope and sequence into students' learning experiences. [11]
2. Each year, teachers also work together in collaborative groups (such as professional learning communities) to develop and share additional strategies for incorporating skills from the scope and sequence into students' learning experiences.
3. Each year, technology coaches support teachers as they implement the above strategies.
4. Each year, all ninth graders either take a computer literacy class or take the District computer literacy exam
5. Each year, all tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade students who have not passed the class or the test also take either a computer literacy class or take the District computer literacy exam.
3e.2. Goal - All students will master Information Literacy skills, as identified in enGauge: 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners.[12]
3e.2.1 Objective 1 - All students will master Information Literacy skills, as identified in enGauge: 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners.
• Baseline 2005-2006: Approximately 80% of ninth graders completed an information literacy orientation.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Develop strategies for integrating Information Literacy into the curriculum for all grade levels. Develop 21st Century Skills Survey to measure implementation of the curriculum. 87.5% of ninth graders complete an information literacy orientation.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Implement Information Literacy curriculum for all grade levels. Implement 21st Century Skills Survey. Establish baseline data and establish benchmarks for 2009-2010. 95% of ninth graders complete an information literacy orientation.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Continue implementing and improving Information Literacy curriculum for all grade levels. Continue implementing 21st Century Skills Survey. Meet Information Literacy benchmarks established in 2008-2009. 100% of ninth graders complete an information literacy orientation.
Implementation Plan:
1. In 2007-2008, the Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) establishes grade level and subject area curriculum committees to develop strategies.
2. In 2007-2008, grade level and subject area curriculum committees develop and pilot strategies.
3. In 2007-2008, in The ETAC review and approve strategies developed by curriculum committees, and then present the strategies to the Instructional Council for review and approval.
4. In 2007-2008, cabinet review and approve strategies approved by ETAC and Instructional Council.
5. In 2007-2008, the Educational Technology Specialist, in collaboration with other members of the ETAC, develops the District 21st Century Skills Survey to measure implementation of the strategies.
6. In 2008-2009, technology coaches receive professional development in the implementation of the strategies.[13]
7. In 2008-2009, the technology coaches implement the strategies in their classrooms and provide professional development for other teachers at their site.
8. In 2008-2009, teachers implement the strategies in their classrooms.
9. In 2008-2009, the ETAC, with the help of technology coaches, administers the District 21st Century Skills Survey to a representative and statistically significant sample of students.
10. In 2009-2010, technology coaches will receive professional development in the implementation of the strategies, including any changes as necessary.
11. In 2009-2010, the technology coaches implement the strategies in their classrooms and provide professional development for other teachers at their site.
12. In 2009-2010, teachers implement the strategies in their classrooms.
13. In 2009-2010, the ETAC, with the help of technology coaches, administers the District 21st Century Skills Survey to a representative and statistically significant sample of students.
3f. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan for programs and methods of utilizing technology that ensure appropriate access to all students.
The following goals and objectives have been developed by the Educational Technology Planning Committee to guide the implementation of technology to ensure appropriate access to all students. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee will monitor progress toward these goals, evaluate their effectiveness, and modify them as necessary (see section 3j).
3f.1. Goal - All students will have appropriate access to technology.
3f.1.1. Objective 1 - All students will have appropriate access to technology, as measured by the District student to computer ratio, the District Student Technology Use Survey, and the District Teacher Technology Use Survey - each survey being administered to a representative and statistically significant sample.[14]
Student-to-Computer Ratio:
• Baseline 2005-2006: District Student-to-Computer Ratio = 7.01:1 (Internet Connected)
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 7:1
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 6:1
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 5:1 (Note: Approximately 1hr/day for each student.)
Survey Data:
• Baseline: Student and Teacher Technology use survey baseline data will be established in 2006-2007.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, students and teachers will answer "at least once a month" (3.0) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.[15]
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, students and teachers will answer "at least once a week" (4.0) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, students and teachers will answer "daily" (4.5) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
3f.1.2. Objective 2 - ELL: All students identified as English Language Learners will have appropriate access to technology necessary to support mastery of the English Language Development Standards in addition to District and State Academic Standards, as measured by the student to computer ratio in ELL classrooms, the District Student Technology Use Survey (disaggregated by ELL students), and the District Teacher Technology Use Survey (disaggregated by ELL teachers) - each survey being administered to a representative and statistically significant sample.
Student-to-Computer Ratio:
• Baseline: Currently, no quantitative data exists. Anecdotally, the committee observes significant inequity district wide. For the duration of this plan, the disaggregated ratio should equal the ratio for all students.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 7:1
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 6:1
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 5:1
Survey Data:
• Baseline: Student and Teacher Technology use survey baseline data will be established in 2006-2007.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, ELL students and teachers will answer "at least once a month" (3.0) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, ELL students and teachers will answer "at least once a week" (4.0) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, ELL students and teachers will answer "daily" (4.5) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
3f.1.3. Objective 3 - GATE: All students identified as gifted and talented will have appropriate access to technology necessary to support the District GATE Plan, as measured by the student to computer ratio in GATE classrooms, the District Student Technology Use Survey (disaggregated by GATE students), and the District Teacher Technology Use Survey (disaggregated by GATE teachers) - each survey being administered to a representative and statistically significant sample.
Student-to-Computer Ratio:
• Baseline: Currently, no quantitative data exists. Anecdotally, the committee observes significant inequity district wide. For the duration of this plan, the disaggregated ratio should equal the ratio for all students.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 7:1
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 6:1
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 5:1
Survey Data:
• Baseline: Student and Teacher Technology use survey baseline data will be established in 2006-2007.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, GATE students and teachers will answer "at least once month" (3.0) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, GATE students and teachers will answer "at least once a week" (4.0) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, GATE students and teachers will answer "daily" (4.5) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
3f.1.4. Objective 4 - Special Education: All students identified for special education will have appropriate access to technology, as measured by the student to computer ratio in Special Education classrooms, the District Student Technology Use Survey (disaggregated by Special Education students), and the District Teacher Technology Use Survey (disaggregated by Special Education teachers) - each survey being administered to a representative and statistically significant sample.
Student-to-Computer Ratio:
• Baseline: Currently, no quantitative data exists. Anecdotally, the committee observes significant inequity district wide. For the duration of this plan, the disaggregated ratio should equal the ratio for all students.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 7:1
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 6:1
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 5:1
Survey Data:
• Baseline: Student and Teacher Technology use survey baseline data will be established in 2006-2007.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, Special Education students and teachers will answer "at least once a month" (3.0) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, Special Education students and teachers will answer "at least once a week" (4.0) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, Special Education students and teachers will answer "daily" (4.5) in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
o Action plan note: See above.
3f.1.5. Objective 5 - Students With Disabilities: All students with identified disabilities will have appropriate access to assistive technologies, as measured by fulfillment of IEP technology requirements.
• Baseline: 100% of all students with identified disabilities have appropriate access to assistive technologies, as measured by fulfillment of IEP technology requirements.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 100% of all students with identified disabilities will have appropriate access to assistive technologies, as measured by fulfillment of IEP technology requirements.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 100% of all students with identified disabilities will have appropriate access to assistive technologies, as measured by fulfillment of IEP technology requirements.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 100% of all students with identified disabilities will have appropriate access to assistive technologies, as measured by fulfillment of IEP technology requirements.
Implementation Plan:
1. Each year, technology coaches coordinate inventory at their sites.
2. Each year, technology coaches report their findings to their SIP committees, the District Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) and to the state (via the annual technology survey).
3. Each year, school sites purchase computers necessary to meet the student-to-computer ratio goal at the site.
4. Each year, the district provides sites financial support as necessary and as possible.
5. Each year, the district reviews all funding sources to determine if any changes will need to be made in the district technology budget.
6. Each year, the district configures, deploys, and installs all new computers as planned.
7. Each year, the district collects and disposes of all old and/or surplus technology in a manner as prescribed by law.
8. Each year, TIS personnel review potential donations to determine if they meet District specifications and allocate out to sites in accordance with the planned deployment.[16]
9. In 2007-2008, the Educational Technology Specialist, in collaboration with other members of the ETAC, develops the District Teacher Technology Use Survey to measure implementation of the strategies.
10. Each year, the ETAC, with the help of technology coaches, administers the District Teacher Technology Use Survey to a representative and statistically significant sample of students.
The planning committee also acknowledges the need for students, particularly students from low-income families, to have access to technology after school hours. The committee encourages school’s to provide hours in the computer labs and/or libraries for students to access computers after school. Classified aides trained in using technology may be able to supervise extended lab hours including evening and Saturday school. Extended hours could also be used to serve online independent study students.[17]
3f.2. Goal – One-to-One Initiative: The District will implement one-to-one pilot programs in order to better understand an environment in which each student will have access to a computer whenever necessary to meet the goals in sections 3d and 3e.[18]
3f.2.1. Objective 1 - One-to-One Initiative: The District will implement one-to-one pilot programs in order to better understand an environment in which each student will have access to a computer whenever necessary to meet the goals in sections 3d and 3e.
• Baseline: The District has no one-to-one initiative.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The District will implement a three one-to-one pilot programs: one elementary classroom, one middle school classroom, and one high school classroom. Each program will be hosted in one of the three different geographical hubs of the district. (A total of three pilot teachers)
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The District will expand the one-to-one pilot programs to include a total of nine programs: one elementary program, one middle school program, and one high school program (freshmen) in each of three hubs. The three existing pilot programs will expand to include a second teacher. An effort will be made to keep students who participated during the previous year in the program for another year. (A total of 12 pilot teachers)
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The District will expand the one-to-one pilot programs to include one pilot program at each site. All existing pilot programs will expand to include an additional teacher. An effort will be made to keep students who participated during the previous year in the program for another year. (A total of 48 pilot teachers, given the 24 existing sites.) Note: Alternatively, the benchmarks for objective 6 can be aligned with opportunities to open new schools. Note: Perhaps AVID is a natural program for implementing at the high school level. GATE may be a natural for K-8.)
Implementation Plan: See benchmarks above.[19]
The planning committee acknowledges that actual pilot programs may very from this proposal. This is appropriate, as many variables may effect the practical implementation of pilot programs and new opportunities may arise. For instance, with construction of several new schools planned for the near future, it may well be decided to concentrate one-to-one pilot efforts at one or more new sites as they become available, rather than at existing sites with more potential logistical barriers to success.
3g. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan to utilize technology to make student record keeping and assessment more efficient and supportive of teachers’ efforts to meet individual student academic needs.
The following goals and objectives have been developed by the Educational Technology Planning Committee to guide the implementation of technology to make student record keeping and assessment more efficient and supportive of teachers’ efforts to meet individual student academic needs. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee will monitor progress toward these goals, evaluate their effectiveness, and modify them as necessary (see section 3j).
The Distict is already a CSIS compliant district. Also, the new effort to support Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) at each site in the District will benefit these efforts as well.
3g.1. Goal - The District will use technology to improve student achievement through data collection, analysis, reporting, and data driven decision-making.
3g.1.1. Objective 1 - The District will use technology to improve student achievement through data collection, analysis, reporting, and data driven decision-making, as measured by Data Director access reports, the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, and the District Administrator Technology Use Survey.[20]
Data Director:
• Baseline 2006-2007: 18,527 logins (July 1, 2006 to Jan 8, 2007). 995 Unique users. 18.6 logins per user (average).
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 25,000 logins, 1000 unique users, 25 logins per user
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 30,000 logins, 1050 unique users, 28.6 logins per user
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 35,000 logins, 1100 unique users, 31.8 logins per user
Survey Data:
• Baselines 2006-2007: Student and Teacher Technology use survey baseline data will be established in Spring 2006-2007.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, instructional staff will answer "at least once a term" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, instructional staff will answer "at least once a month" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, instructional staff will answer "at least once a week" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Survey.
Implementation Plan:
1. Each year, all teachers will receive professional development in using technology to improve student achievement through data collection, analysis, reporting, and data driven decision-making.[21]
2. Each year, District staff, teachers, and administrators will continue the use of Zangle and Data Director at the site and district levels to monitor and improve student achievement. The use of these tools will be expanded at the classroom level each year as well, particularly through the following strategy.
3. Each year, District teachers and administrators will continue and expand the use of professional learning communities to facilitate data collection, analysis, reporting, and data driven decision-making.
3h. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan to utilize technology to make teachers and administrators more accessible to parents.
The following goals and objectives have been developed by the Educational Technology Planning Committee to guide the implementation of technology to make teachers and administrators more accessible to parents. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee will monitor progress toward these goals, evaluate their effectiveness, and modify them as necessary (see section 3j).
3h.1. Goal - The District will utilize technology to make teachers and administrators more accessible to parents.
3h.1.1. Objective 1 - The District will utilize the Zangle student information system to make teachers and administrators more accessible to parents, as measured by Zangle Parent Connection reports.
• Baseline 2006-2007: 100% of teachers use Zangle daily (at least for attendance). At the secondary level, 100% of teachers use Zangle to post grades. 2700 students had at least one parent access Zangle (over the course of the year). [22]
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 100% of teachers use Zangle daily (at least for attendance). At the secondary level, 100% of teachers use Zangle to post grades. 5000 students will have at least one parent access Zangle (over the course of the year).
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 100% of teachers use Zangle daily (at least for attendance). At the secondary level, 100% of teachers use Zangle to post grades. 7,500 students will have at least one parent access Zangle (over the course of the year).
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 100% of teachers use Zangle daily (at least for attendance). At the secondary level, 100% of teachers use Zangle to post grades. 10,000 students will have at least one parent access Zangle (over the course of the year).
3h.1.2. Objective 2 - Teachers and administrators will use a variety of one-way and two-way technologies (such as email, instant messaging, video chat, web-based announcements, blog comments, podcasts, and shared network storage) to communicate with parents, as measured by the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, Administrator Technology Use Survey, and Parent Technology Use Survey.[23] [24] [25]
• Baseline: No baseline.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Develop the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, Administrator Technology Use Survey, and Parent Technology Use Survey.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Implement the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, Administrator Technology Use Survey, and Parent Technology Use Survey. Establish baseline data and establish benchmarks for 2009-2010.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Continue implementing and improving the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, Administrator Technology Use Survey, and Parent Technology Use Survey. Meet High Productivity benchmarks established in 2008-2009.
Implementation Plan:
1. Each year, the District will continue to offer professional development opportunities for staff, teachers, and administrators to learn to use Zangle Parent Connection to make teachers, administrators, and student data more accessible to parents.[26]
2. Each year, the District will continue to offer workshops for parents to learn how to access Parent Connection co connect with teachers, administrators, and data related to their student(s).
3. In 2007-2008, the Educational Technology Specialist, in collaboration with other members of the ETAC, develops the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, Administrator Technology Use Survey, and Parent Technology Use Survey to measure implementation of the strategies.
4. Each year, the ETAC, with the help of technology coaches. administers the Technology Use Surveys to a representative and statistically significant sample of teachers, administrators, and parents. The results are compared with previous years. See also the benchmarks above.
3i. List of benchmarks and a timeline for implementing planned strategies and activities.
Benchmarks and timelines are presented in context throughout sections 3d, 3e, 3f, 3g, and 3h. Please see these sections above. See also section 3j below for further discussion of who is responsible (and when) for monitoring progress on these goals.
3j. Description of the process that will be used to monitor whether the strategies and methodologies utilizing technology are being implemented according to the benchmarks and timeline.
The following process has been developed by the Educational Technology Planning Committee to monitor whether the above strategies and methodologies utilizing technology are being implemented according to the benchmarks and timelines. This process will also facilitate the evaluation of the above goals. There are three key elements to this process. At the site level, technology coaches will be established at each school. At the district level, a new Educational Technology Advisory Committee, modeled after the current Educational Technology Planning Committee will also be established. Finally, the coaches and Advisory committee will report to other leadership bodies as necessary to ensure implementation of the above goals and efficient articulation across departments, divisions, and curricular areas.
Site Level: Technology Coaches[27]
With input from the educational technology specialist, principals will identify one teacher at each school site to serve as a technology coach at each site. Technology coaches are teacher leaders who implement, model, and evaluate technology plan goals and benchmarks at their site.
Technology coaches will meet with the educational technology specialist on a bi-monthly basis, either in a large group meeting, in small (zone-based) meetings, or individually. Technology coaches will support the monitoring and evaluation of this plan by...
• Facilitating the implementation of the above goals at their site.
• Modeling the implementation of the above goals at their site.
• Sharing instructional techniques for implementing the above goals at their site (and with other sites at bimonthly meetings).
• Mentoring other teachers in the implementation of the above goals at their site.
• Implementing District surveys measuring progress on benchmarks at their site.
• Implementing state technology surveys as necessary.
• Communicating site needs and issues to the district.
• Communicating district needs and issues to the site.
Note that funding is required in order to provide a 7.5% annual stipend to compensate technology coaches for performing their duties and attending meetings. See Section 6 for additional information on funding and budget.
District Level: Advisory Committee
The District Educational Technology Advisory Committee will consist of the educational technology specialist, representative curriculum specialists, the professional development coordinator, the TIS director, the director of fiscal services, the director of testing and assessment, the director of adult education, the coordinator of career and technical education, a special education and assistive technology representative, three "lead" technology coaches (one each from an elementary, middle, and high school). A senior director of educational services will chair the Advisory Committee.
The committee will meet quarterly to coordinate technology use between programs, to focus on technology needs, and to integrate the implementation of the above goals into existing programs so that the goals do not represent an additional burden for educators and staff. The advisory committee will support the monitoring and evaluation of this plan by...
• Providing support for technology coaches.
• Monitoring and evaluating District survey results to measure progress on benchmarks district-wide.
• Monitoring and evaluating state technology survey results as necessary.
• Monitoring and evaluating site needs as reported by the technology coaches and others.
• Communicating district needs and issues to the technology coaches.
• Acting on their analysis of the above evaluations to improve implementation of the tech plan goals as needed.
• Annually reviewing progress on technology plan benchmarks, evaluating the effectiveness of the technology plan, and revising the technology plan as needed.
A Curriculum Subcommittee will be formed to focus on issues relevant to this particular section of the plan, and to provide support and guidance in these matters for the Advisory Committee as a whole.
Articulation and Reporting to Leadership
The Advisory Committee chair and the educational technology specialist will report to the Instructional Council and other bodies as needed.
The Advisory Committee chair and the educational technology specialist will report annually to the Board of Education in open session.
Annually, the Advisory Committee will reevaluate and revise the educational technology plan for review and approval by the Instructional Council, Cabinet, and the Board.
The Senior Director of Educational Services is responsible for implementing, monitoring, and evaluating this plan.
4. Professional Development
This section is the key to successful implementation of the curriculum goals above. It begins by providing a summary of the teachers’ and administrators’ current technology skills and their needs for professional development. In light of this needs assessment, the remainder of the section lays out the professional development driven technology goals that will guide planning and implementation for the duration of this plan.
The goals presented in this section align with the curriculum goals in the previous section. Specific goals include those for using technology to improve teaching and learning, and those for supporting student acquisition of technological and information literacy skills needed to succeed in the classroom and workplace. Goals are also included that will drive the use of technology for data-driven decision making and for making teachers and administrators more accessible to parents.
This section concludes by elaborating on the plan to establish technology coaches and an Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating this plan.
In addition to the curriculum goals presented above, the goals presented in this section are the driving force behind the infrastructure and funding sections that follow.
4a. Summary of the teachers’ and administrators’ current technology skills and needs for professional development.
This section of the Education Technology Plan provides a summary of the District teachers’ and administrators’ current technology skills from the EdTech Profile survey, developed by the California Department of Education’s State Educational Technology Service (SETS). The survey findings are summarized by specific skills in order to help individuals, schools, and districts plan technology professional development based on identified needs. The EdTech Profile survey data and teacher input are reviewed at the District level as well as at the site level annually to better define the following year’s professional development activities. Additional District technology integration data can be found in section 3b.
These results were used to develop the goals for technology staff development.
Administrators' Current Technology Skills
Figure 25 below depicts the level of technology proficiency reported by Palm Springs USD Administrators on the EdTechProfile self-assessment.
Implications: The District has provided many training opportunities to administrators, and this seems to be reflected in their relatively high level of proficiency as a group. However, administrators still need training in computer skills, especially in presentations, spreadsheets, and databases (Zangle and Data Director in particular). Providing this training will be an important part of meeting goal 4b3 below.
Though there are not significant EdTechProfile data on Palm Springs administrators' related to standards 9 and 16, the planning committee believes it is important for administrators to receive training in these areas as well. (See the implications of teachers' skills below.)
[pic]
Figure 25. Administrator Technology Proficiency
Teachers' Current Technology Skills
Figure 26 below depicts the level of technology proficiency reported by Palm Springs USD Teachers on the EdTechProfile self-assessment.
Figure 27 then depicts proficiency in Teaching Standard 9 as reported by Palm Springs USD Teachers on the EdTechProfile self-assessment.
Finally, figure 28 depicts proficiency in Teaching Standard 16 as reported by Palm Springs USD Teachers on the EdTechProfile self-assessment.
Implications: Teachers, too, show a relatively high level of proficiency in general computer, email, internet, and word processing skills. However, they too require additional training in computer skills, particularly in presentations, spreadsheets, and databases (Zangle and Data Director). Providing this training will be an important part of meeting goal 4b3 below.
Based on these reports it is clear that teachers require additional professional development in using technology in the classroom (standard 9). In particular, they need to learn to evaluate and select educational software (9g). They also need to learn to use electronic research tools, and to assess the data gathered (9h).
Also, it is clear that teachers require additional professional development in using technology to support student learning (standard 16). In particular, they need to learn to interact and communicate with other professionals through a variety of methods, including the use of computer-based collaborative tools to support technology-enhanced curriculum (standard 16b). In addition, they need to be able to demonstrate competence in evaluating the authenticity, reliability and bias of the data gathered, determine outcomes, and evaluate the success or effectiveness of the process used. Teachers need to learn to frequently monitor and reflects upon the results of using technology in instruction and adapting lessons accordingly (standard 16g).
[pic]
Figure 26. Teacher Technology Proficiency
[pic]
Figure 27. Teacher Proficiency on Standard 9
[pic]
Figure 28. Teacher Proficiency on Standard 16
Teacher Professional Development Needs
The EdTechProfile also provides data on teacher staff development needs and preferences, as reported by the teachers themselves. The following three questions were asked of all teachers who completed the survey. Below each question, the responses are summarized and the implications are discussed.
I need opportunities to participate in educational technology staff development focused on:
Basic computer/technology skills: 322 (28%)[28]
Integrating technology into the curriculum. 820 (72%)
Implications: The District will focus professional development efforts on helping teachers integrate technology into the curriculum, while still providing opportunities to develop basic computer/technology skills for those who need remediation in this area.
The training format I prefer is:
One-on-one informal technology training. 269 (21%)
Small group technology training. 738 (58%)
Online web-based technology training. 262 (21%)
Implications: The District will focus professional development efforts on providing small group training, while also making an effort to provide one-on-one coaching for those who need it. In addition, the District will continue to support the use of online learning via on-demand services such as Atomic Learning, and to explore additional online and distance learning environments, including video chat or services such as WebEx for online meetings.
I prefer technology training to be offered:
During the school day. 587 (39%)
After school. 452 (30%)
In the evening. 85 (6%)
On the weekend. 95 (6%)
During the summer/off track. 284 (19%)
Implications: The District will focus professional development efforts on providing training during the school day (whenever possible) and after school. In addition, classes may be successful if offered during the summer break.
Specific goals for technology professional development follow in section 4b below.
4b. List of clear goals and a specific implementation plan for providing professional development opportunities based on the needs assessment and the Curriculum Component goals, benchmarks, and timeline.
The following goals and objectives have been developed by the Educational Technology Planning Committee to guide the implementation of professional development to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee will monitor progress toward these goals, evaluate their effectiveness, and modify them as necessary (see section 4d).
4b.1. Goal - Instructional staff will guide students in the use of technology to support mastery of district and state academic standards.[29]
4b.1.1 Objective 1 - The District will work with all sites to ensure delivery of appropriate professional development to instructional staff in the use of technology to support student mastery of district and state academic standards, as measured by the professional development opportunities offered, records of participation, and the EdTechProfile.
Professional Development Opportunities:
• Baseline 2006-2007: Existing opportunities and records of participation include Data Director, Zangle gradebook and web applications training, AB430 Module 3, BTSA, and EETT. Some existing needs are identified in section 4a above.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Establish a centralized district-wide system for tracking and quantifying educational technology professional development opportunities offered and records of participation. Assess the technology-based professional development needs of instructional staff. Create a professional development plan to meet the needs of instructional staff, with a focus on creating engaging learning experiences in the core curricular areas and English Language Development. Meanwhile, begin offering professional development based on the needs identified in section 4a above.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Implement the professional development plan created in 2007-2008 using the centralized district-wide system for tracking and quantifying professional development opportunities and records of participation. Establish baseline data for comparison in 2009-2010. Continue needs assessments and create a plan for 2009-2010.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Continue assessing needs and implementing the professional development plan. Show growth in comparison to baselines established in 2008-2009.
EdTechProfile:
• Baseline 2005-2006: 7% Proficient in Standard 9, 5% in Standard 16 (40% Intermediate or Proficient in Standard 9, 32% in Standard 16)
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 17% Proficient in Standard 9, 15% in Standard 16 (50% Intermediate or Proficient in Standard 9, 42% in Standard 16)
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 27% Proficient in Standard 9, 25% in Standard 16 (60% Intermediate or Proficient in Standard 9, 52% in Standard 16)
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 37% Proficient in Standard 9, 35% in Standard 16 (70% Intermediate or Proficient in Standard 9, 62% in Standard 16)
4b.1.2 Objective 2 - The District will work with all sites to provide ongoing support to instructional staff in the use of technology to support student mastery of District and State Academic Standards, as measured by technology coaches logs, the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, the District Administrator Technology Use Survey.
• Baseline 2006-2007: Existing ongoing support includes EETT coaches, the Educational Technology Specialist, the Data Systems team, and the Technology & Information Services help desk staff. Baseline survey data will be established in 2006-2007. Some existing needs are identified in section 4a above.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, instructional staff will answer "more than a week, but less than a month" in response to this item on the District Technology Use Surveys. Coaches will be providing support based on existing needs, as identified in section 4a above and as established in 2006-2007.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, instructional staff will answer "two to five work days" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, instructional staff will answer "within a day" in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the implementation plan for goal 3d.1 in the curriculum section.
2. See the details provided in the benchmarks above, particularly under the professional development opportunities associated with objective 1.
3. Each year, administer the EdTechProfile to 80% or more of all instructional staff.
4. Each year, the ETAC, with the aid of the technology coaches, will administer the District Technology Use Surveys to a representative and statistically significant sample of students, teachers, and administrators.
5. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will then evaluate the results of the EdTechProfile and the District Technology Use Surveys annually and make adjustments to the professional development implementation as necessary. See section 4d for more on the monitoring and evaluation process.
4b.2. Goal - Instructional staff will guide students in the use of technology to support development of 21st Century Learning Skills.
4b.2.1. Objective 1 - The District will work with all sites to ensure delivery of appropriate professional development to instructional staff in the use of technology to support student development of 21st Century Learning Skills, as measured by the professional development opportunities offered, and records of participation.
• Baseline 20096-2007: This is a new initiative and no related professional development has been offered in the past.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Establish a centralized district-wide system for tracking and quantifying educational technology professional development opportunities offered and records of participation. Assess the technology-based professional development needs of instructional staff. Create a professional development plan to meet the needs of instructional staff, with a focus on student development of 21st Century Learning Skills.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Implement the professional development plan created in 2007-2008 using the centralized district-wide system for tracking and quantifying professional development opportunities and records of participation. Establish baseline data for comparison in 2009-2010. Continue needs assessments and create a plan for 2009-2010.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Continue assessing needs and implementing the professional development plan. Show growth in comparison to baselines established in 2008-2009.
4b.2.2. Objective 2 - The District will work with all sites to provide ongoing support to instructional staff in the use of technology to support student development of 21st Century Learning Skills, as measured by technology coaches logs, the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, and the District Administrator Technology Use Survey.
• Baseline 2006-2007: This is a new initiative and no related support has been offered in the past.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, instructional staff will answer "more than a week, but less than a month" in response to this item on the District Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, instructional staff will answer "two to five work days" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, instructional staff will answer "within a day" in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the implementation plan for goal 3d.2 in the curriculum section.
2. See the details provided in the benchmarks associated with objective 1 above.
3. Each year, the ETAC, with the aid of the technology coaches, will administer the District Technology Use Surveys to a representative and statistically significant sample of students, teachers, and administrators.
4. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will then evaluate the results of the District Technology Use Surveys annually and make adjustments to the professional development implementation as necessary. See section 4d for more on the monitoring and evaluation process.
4b.3. Goal - Instructional staff will guide students in the mastery of technology skills identified in the District Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence.
4b.3.1. Objective 1 - The District will work with all sites to ensure delivery of appropriate professional development to instructional staff in the instructional use of the District Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence, as measured by the professional development opportunities offered, records of participation, and the EdTechProfile.
Professional Development Opportunities:
• Baseline 2006-2007: This is a new initiative and no related professional development has been offered in the past.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Establish a centralized district-wide system for tracking and quantifying educational technology professional development opportunities offered and records of participation. Assess the technology-based professional development needs of instructional staff. Create a professional development plan to meet the needs of instructional staff, with a focus on mastery of technology skills identified in the District Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Implement the professional development plan created in 2007-2008 using the centralized district-wide system for tracking and quantifying professional development opportunities and records of participation. Establish baseline data for comparison in 2009-2010. Continue needs assessments and create a plan for 2009-2010.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Continue assessing needs and implementing the professional development plan. Show growth in comparison to baselines established in 2008-2009.
EdTechProfile:
• Baseline 2005-2006: 26% Proficient in Basic Skills (70% Proficient or Intermediate)
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 36% Proficient in Basic Skills (75% Proficient or Intermediate)
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 46% Proficient in Basic Skills (80% Proficient or Intermediate)
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 56% Proficient in Basic Skills (85% Proficient or Intermediate)
4b.3.2 Objective 2 - The District will work with all sites to provide ongoing support to instructional staff in the instructional use of the District Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence, as measured by technology coaches logs, the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, the District Administrator Technology Use Survey, and the Information & Technology Services help desk records.
• Baseline 2006-2007: This is a new initiative and no related support has been offered in the past.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, instructional staff will answer "more than a week, but less than a month" in response to this item on the District Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, instructional staff will answer "two to five work days" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, instructional staff will answer "within a day" in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the implementation plan for goal 3e.1 in the curriculum section.
2. See the details provided in the benchmarks associated with objective 1 above.
3. Each year, the ETAC, with the aid of the technology coaches, will administer the District Technology Use Surveys to a representative and statistically significant sample of students, teachers, and administrators.
4. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will then evaluate the results the District Technology Use Surveys and TIS help desk records annually and make adjustments to the professional development implementation as necessary. See section 4d for more on the monitoring and evaluation process.
4b.4. Goal - Instructional staff will guide students in the mastery of Information Literacy skills, as identified in enGauge: 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners.
4b.4.1. Objective 1 - The District will work with all sites to ensure delivery of appropriate professional development to instructional staff in the instruction of information literacy skills, as measured by the professional development opportunities offered, and records of participation.
• Baseline 2006-2007: This is a new initiative and no related professional development has been offered recently.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Establish a centralized district-wide system for tracking and quantifying educational technology professional development opportunities offered and records of participation. Assess the technology-based professional development needs of instructional staff. Create a professional development plan to meet the needs of instructional staff, with a focus on student mastery of information literacy skills.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Implement the professional development plan created in 2007-2008 using the centralized district-wide system for tracking and quantifying professional development opportunities and records of participation. Establish baseline data for comparison in 2009-2010. Continue needs assessments and create a plan for 2009-2010.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Continue assessing needs and implementing the professional development plan. Show growth in comparison to baselines established in 2008-2009.
4b.4.2. Objective 2 - The District will work with all sites to provide ongoing support to instructional staff in the instruction of information literacy skills, as measured by technology coaches logs, the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, the District Administrator Technology Use Survey, and the Information & Technology Services help desk records.
• Baseline: This is a new initiative and no related support has been offered in the past.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, instructional staff will answer "more than a week, but less than a month" in response to this item on the District Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, instructional staff will answer "two to five work days" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, instructional staff will answer "within a day" in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the implementation plan for goal 3e.2 in the curriculum section.
2. See the details provided in the benchmarks associated with objective 1 above.
3. Each year, the ETAC, with the aid of the technology coaches, will administer the District Technology Use Surveys to a representative and statistically significant sample of students, teachers, and administrators.
4. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will then evaluate the results the District Technology Use Surveys and TIS help desk records annually and make adjustments to the professional development implementation as necessary. See section 4d for more on the monitoring and evaluation process.
4b.5. Goal - The District will implement one-to-one pilot programs in order to better understand an environment in which each student will have access to a computer whenever necessary to meet the goals in sections 3d and 3e.
4b.5.1. Objective 1 - The District will work with pilot sites to ensure delivery of appropriate professional development to pilot instructional staff in the use of computers in a one-to-one learning environment, as measured by the professional development opportunities offered, records of participation, and pilot program records.
• Baseline 2006-2007: This is a new initiative and no related professional development has been offered recently.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Establish a centralized district-wide system for tracking and quantifying educational technology professional development opportunities offered and records of participation. Assess the technology-based professional development needs of pilot instructional staff. Create a professional development plan to meet the needs of pilot instructional staff, with a focus on the use of computers in a one-to-one learning environment.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Implement the professional development plan created in 2007-2008 using the centralized district-wide system for tracking and quantifying professional development opportunities and records of participation. Establish baseline data for comparison in 2009-2010. Continue needs assessments and create a plan for 2009-2010.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Continue assessing needs and implementing the professional development plan. Show growth in comparison to baselines established in 2008-2009.
4b.5.2. Objective 2 - The District will work with pilot sites to provide ongoing support to pilot instructional staff in the use of computers in a one-to-one learning environment, as measured by technology coaches logs, the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, the District Administrator Technology Use Survey, and the Information & Technology Services help desk records.
• Baseline: This is a new initiative and no related support has been offered in the past.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, instructional staff will answer "more than a week, but less than a month" in response to this item on the District Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, instructional staff will answer "two to five work days" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, instructional staff will answer "within a day" in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the implementation plan for goal 3f.2 in the curriculum section.
2. See the details provided in the benchmarks associated with objective 1 above.
3. Each year, the ETAC, with the aid of the technology coaches, will administer the District Technology Use Surveys to a representative and statistically significant sample of students, teachers, and administrators.
4. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will then evaluate the results the District Technology Use Surveys and TIS help desk records annually and make adjustments to the professional development implementation as necessary. See section 4d for more on the monitoring and evaluation process.
4b.6. Goal - The District will use technology to improve student achievement through data collection, analysis, reporting, and data driven decision-making.
4b.6.1. Objective 1 - The District will work with all sites to ensure delivery of appropriate professional development to instructional staff in the use of technology to improve student achievement through data collection, analysis, reporting, and data driven decision-making, as measured by the professional development opportunities offered, and records of participation.
• Baseline 2006-2007: In 2006-2007 the district provided training on Data Director for all teachers and administrators via a trainer-of-trainers model. At least one administrator and one teacher from each site was formally trained, and then provided formal and/or informal training for others at their site. Additional training and support has been provided at several sites.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The district will provide beginning training on Data Director for all incoming instructional staff. Optional advanced training will be provided to existing instructional staff.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The district will continue providing beginning training on Data Director for all incoming instructional staff. Optional advanced training will continue to be provided to existing instructional staff.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The district will continue providing beginning training on Data Director for all incoming instructional staff. Optional advanced training will continue to be provided to existing instructional staff.
4b.6.2. Objective 2 - The District will work with all sites to provide ongoing support to instructional staff in the use of technology to improve student achievement through data collection, analysis, reporting, and data driven decision-making, as measured by technology coaches logs, the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, the District Administrator Technology Use Survey, and the Information & Technology Services help desk records.
• Baseline 2006-2007: The staff and director of standards, assessment, and accountability provide support as needed. Baseline survey data will be established in 2006-2007.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, instructional staff will answer "more than a week, but less than a month" in response to this item on the District Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, instructional staff will answer "two to five work days" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, instructional staff will answer "within a day" in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
4b.6.3. Objective 3 - Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) will use technology to improve student achievement through data collection, analysis, reporting, and data driven decision-making, as measured by the District Teacher Technology Use Survey and the District Administrator Technology Use Survey.
• Baseline 2006-2007: This is a new initiative and no related support has been offered in the past.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 60% of instructional staff will answer "once a month" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 75% of instructional staff will answer "once a month" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 90% of instructional staff will answer "once a month" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the implementation plan for goal 3g.1 in the curriculum section.
2. See the details provided in the benchmarks associated with objective 1 above.
3. Each year, District teachers and administrators will continue and expand the use of professional learning communities to facilitate data collection, analysis, reporting, and data driven decision-making.
4. Each year, the ETAC, with the aid of the technology coaches, will administer the District Technology Use Surveys to a representative and statistically significant sample of students, teachers, and administrators.
5. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will then evaluate the results the District Technology Use Surveys and TIS help desk records annually and make adjustments to the professional development implementation as necessary. See section 4d for more on the monitoring and evaluation process.
4b.7. Goal - The District will utilize technology to make teachers and administrators more accessible to parents.
4b.7.1. Objective 1 - The District will work with all sites to ensure delivery of appropriate professional development to staff in the use of technology to be more accessible to parents, as measured by the professional development opportunities offered, records of participation, and the Educational Technology Profile.
• Baseline 2006-2007: The District provided professional development in the use of Zangle web applications at all secondary sites.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The District will provide professional development in the use of Zangle web applications at all sites, including elementary sites.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The District will provide beginning training in the use of Zangle web applications for all incoming instructional staff. Optional advanced training will be provided to existing instructional staff.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The District will continue providing beginning training in the use of Zangle web applications for all incoming instructional staff. Optional advanced training will continue to be provided to existing instructional staff.
4b.7.2 Objective 2 - The District will work with all sites to provide ongoing support to staff in the use of technology to be more accessible to parents, as measured by technology coaches logs, the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, the District Administrator Technology Use Survey, and the Information & Technology Services help desk records.
• Baseline 2006-2007: The Data Systems team (four people) currently provide ongoing on-demand training and support to approximately 2000 Zangle web users.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, instructional staff will answer "more than a week, but less than a month" in response to this item on the District Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, instructional staff will answer "two to five work days" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, instructional staff will answer "within a day" in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the implementation plan for goal 3h.1 in the curriculum section.
2. See the details provided in the benchmarks associated with objective 1 above.
3. Each year, the ETAC, with the aid of the technology coaches, will administer the District Technology Use Surveys to a representative and statistically significant sample of students, teachers, and administrators.
4. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will then evaluate the results the District Technology Use Surveys and TIS help desk records annually and make adjustments to the professional development implementation as necessary. See section 4d for more on the monitoring and evaluation process.
4b.8. Goal - Certificated staff will master the technology skills necessary to support instruction and administration, as identified in the CTAP Level 1 and Level 2 Teacher Technology Proficiencies.
4b.8.1. Objective 1 - The District will work with all sites to ensure delivery of appropriate professional development to certificated staff in the use of technology to support instruction and administration, as measured by the professional development opportunities offered, records of participation, and the Educational Technology Profile.
Professional Development Opportunities:
• Baseline 2006-2007: (BTSA training?) Every teacher to be credentialed must have cleared California Standard for the Teacher Profession Standard 16, with the exception of the uncredentialed teachers (those missing only the technology portion of their credential).
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Over the course of the year, the district will provide the opportunity to participate in four days (or the equivalent, 24 hours) of CTAP Level 1 training for at least 25% of all certificated staff.[30] [31] [32]
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Over the course of the year, the district will provide the opportunity to participate in four days of training (or the equivalent, 24 hours) for at least 50% of all certificated staff.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Over the course of the year, the district will provide the opportunity to participate in four days of training (or the equivalent, 24 hours) for 100% of all certificated staff.
EdTechProfile:
• Baseline 2005-2006: Average of 1.937 in Computer Knowledge and Skills.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Average of 2.15 in Computer Knowledge and Skills.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Average of 2.3 in Computer Knowledge and Skills.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Average of 2.45 in Computer Knowledge and Skills.
4b.8.2. Objective 2 - The District will work with all sites to provide ongoing support to staff in the use of technology to certificated staff in the use of technology to support instruction and administration, as measured by technology coaches logs, the District Teacher Technology Use Survey, the District Administrator Technology Use Survey, and the Information & Technology Services help desk records.
• Baseline 2006-2007: Baseline data will be established in 2006-2007.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, instructional staff will answer "more than a week, but less than a month" in response to this item on the District Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, instructional staff will answer "two to five work days" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, instructional staff will answer "within a day" in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the benchmarks associated with objective 1 above.
2. Each year, administer the EdTechProfile to 80% or more of all certificated staff.
3. Each year, the ETAC, with the aid of the technology coaches, will administer the District Technology Use Surveys to a representative and statistically significant sample of students, teachers, and administrators.
4. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will then evaluate the results the District Technology Use Surveys and TIS help desk records annually and make adjustments to the professional development implementation as necessary. See section 4d for more on the monitoring and evaluation process.
4b.9. Goal - Classified staff will master the technology skills necessary to support the instructional and business operations of the District.
4b.9.1. Objective 1 - The District will work with all sites to ensure delivery of appropriate professional development to classified staff in the use of technology to support the instructional and business operations of the District, as measured by the professional development opportunities offered, records of participation, and the EdTechProfile.
Professional Development Opportunities:
• Baseline: All users of the Zangle student information system have received training in order to receive permission. Additional training on Zangle, the Microsoft Office Suite, and email is provided when requested.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The District will hire a full time classified technology trainer to provide ongoing professional development opportunities for classified staff year-round. 25% of classified staff will be able to participate in four days (or the equivalent, 24 hours) of CTAP Level 1 training focused on classified staff.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The District will maintain a full time classified technology trainer to provide ongoing professional development opportunities for classified staff year-round. 50% of classified staff will be able to participate in four days (or the equivalent, 24 hours) of CTAP Level 1 training focused on classified staff.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: a full time classified technology trainer to provide ongoing professional development opportunities for classified staff year-round. 100% of classified staff will be able to participate in four days (or the equivalent, 24 hours) of CTAP Level 1 training focused on classified staff.
EdTechProfile
• Baseline: No significant existing baseline.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Establish baseline data by administering EdTechProfile to classified staff.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Improve average for classified staff in Computer Knowledge and Skills by 10%.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Improve average for classified staff in Computer Knowledge and Skills by an additional 10%.
4b.9.2. Objective 2 - The District will work with all sites to provide ongoing support to classified staff in the use of technology to support the instructional and business operations of the District, as measured by Technology and Information Services help desk records.
• Baseline 2006-2007:
• Benchmark 2007-2008: On average, instructional staff will answer "more than a week, but less than a month" in response to this item on the District Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: On average, instructional staff will answer "two to five work days" in response to this item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: On average, instructional staff will answer "within a day" in response to each item on the District Teacher Technology Use Surveys.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the benchmarks associated with objective 1 above.
2. Each year, administer the EdTechProfile to 80% or more of all classified staff.
3. Each year, the ETAC, with the aid of the technology coaches, will administer the District Technology Use Surveys to a representative and statistically significant sample of students, teachers, and administrators.
4. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will then evaluate the results the District Technology Use Surveys and TIS help desk records annually and make adjustments to the professional development implementation as necessary. See section 4d for more on the monitoring and evaluation process.
4c. List of benchmarks and a timeline for implementing planned strategies and activities.
Benchmarks and timelines are presented in context throughout section 4b above. Please see section 4b for details. See also section 4d below for further discussion of who is responsible (and when) for monitoring progress on these goals.
4d. Description of the process that will be used to monitor whether the professional development goals are being met and whether the planned professional development activities are being implemented in accordance with the benchmarks and timeline.
This section of the plan will be monitored and evaluated by The District Educational Technology Advisory Committee.[33] The Advisory Committee will meet quarterly to coordinate technology use between programs, to focus on technology needs, and to integrate the implementation of the above goals into existing programs. The advisory committee will support the monitoring and evaluation of this section of the plan by...
• Monitoring and evaluating help desk records, purchasing requests, and the annual TIS audit.
• Monitoring and evaluating District survey results to measure progress on benchmarks district-wide.
• Monitoring and evaluating state technology survey results as necessary.
• Acting on their analysis of the above evaluations to improve implementation of the tech plan goals as needed.
• Annually reviewing progress on technology plan benchmarks, evaluating the effectiveness of the technology plan, and revising the technology plan as needed.
A Professional Development Subcommittee will be formed to focus on issues relevant to this section of the plan, and to provide support and guidance in these matters for the Advisory Committee as a whole.
At the site level, technology coaches will aid in the monitoring and evaluation of this plan by…
• Facilitating the implementation of the above goals at their site.
• Modeling the implementation of the above goals at their site.
• Sharing instructional techniques for implementing the above goals at their site (and with other sites at bimonthly meetings).
• Mentoring other teachers in the implementation of the above goals at their site.
• Implementing District surveys measuring progress on benchmarks at their site.
• Implementing state technology surveys as necessary.
• Communicating site needs and issues to the district.
• Communicating district needs and issues to the site.
Feedback from technology coaches will be shared at each Advisory Committee meeting. The Advisory Committee will then report to other leadership bodies as prescribed in section 3j.
5. Infrastructure, Hardware, Software, and Support
This section addresses the infrastructure, hardware, software, and support necessary to implement and support the curriculum and professional development goals in the previous sections. It begins by providing a description of the technology hardware, electronic learning resources, networking and telecommunications infrastructure, physical plant modifications, and technical support needed by the district’s teachers, students, and administrators to support the activities in the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan. This is followed by a description of the existing hardware, Internet access, electronic learning resources, and technical support already in the district that could be used to support the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan. In light of this needs assessment, the remainder of the section lays out goals that will guide planning and implementation for the duration of this plan.
The goals presented in this section align with the curriculum and professional development goals in the previous section. Specific goals include those for providing the software and Electronic Learning Resources (ELRs), hardware (computers and peripherals), networking and telecommunications infrastructure, physical plant modifications, and technical support necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9. In addition, this section includes a goal related to providing a safe and secure computing environment for students and staff, and a goal focused on establishing new policies and procedures for student and staff use of the Internet, including email, Instant Messaging, video conferencing, and two-way web technologies such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts.
This section concludes by elaborating on the plan to establish technology coaches and an Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating this plan.
In addition to the curriculum and professional development goals presented in previous sections, the goals presented in this section are the driving force behind the funding section that follows.
5a. Describe the technology hardware, electronic learning resources, networking and telecommunications infrastructure, physical plant modifications, and technical support needed by the district’s teachers, students, and administrators to support the activities in the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan.
This section of the plan provides a description of the technology hardware, electronic learning resources, networking and telecommunications infrastructure, physical plant modifications, and technical support needed by the district’s teachers, students, and administrators to support the activities in the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan. It also addresses the need for a safe and secure computing environment, and the need for related policies and procedures.
Hardware
Existing District hardware will be sufficient to meet many of the goals in the curriculum and professional development sections of the plan. (See section 5b below for additional detail on existing hardware.) However, there are still significant hardware requirements that need to be met over the next three years. Not the least of these requirements is the need to provide sufficient computers to meet curriculum objectives 3f1.1 through 3f.1.4, which call for improving the student to computer ratio for all students - including those in ELL, GATE, and special education programs - from 7-to-1 to 5-to-1 over the course of three years.[34] Figure 29 below depicts the number of computers needed each year (2007-2010) to replace aging computers, account for the estimated growth in the student population, and still reduce the student to computer ratio. Figure 30 depicts the projected costs of these machines.[35]
This need for hardware is addressed by objective 5c.2.2 below and by section 6b.
[pic]
Figure 29. Student-to-Computer Ratio Needs 2007-2010
[pic]
Figure 30. Student-to-Computer Ratio Costs 2007-2010
In addition to lowering the student to computer ration overall, the hardware requirements necessary for the 1-to-1 pilot programs addressed in curriculum goal 3f.2 must also be provided. Figure 31 below depicts the number of computers needed each year (2007-2010) to make the curriculum benchmarks a reality. Figure 32 depicts the projected costs of these machines. [36]
This need is addressed by objective 5c.2.5 below and by section 6b.
[pic]
Figure 31. One-to-One Needs 2007-2010
[pic]
Figure 32. One-to-One Costs 2007-2010
Note that the acquisition of computers for the one-to-one pilot programs will be lowering the District student-to-computer ratio, and so the costs depicted in Figure 32 are not necessarily "in addition to" the costs depicted in Figure 30. This overlap in costs is depicted in section 6b: Hardware.
It is understood that these costs are significant and that they must be balanced among other district priorities, including construction of new schools. This plan identifies projected needs and associated costs, but the allocation of these funds may remain a continuing challenge for the District.
Electronic Learning Resources
Existing District Electronic Learning Resources (ELRs) will be sufficient to meet many of the goals in the curriculum and professional development sections of the plan. (See section 5b below for additional detail on existing ELRs.) However, in order to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 though 4b.9, purchase requests for new software, recurring subscriptions, and upgrades or maintenance contracts will need to be filled as necessary and as funding allows. It is anticipated that new ELRs, including educational video games and simulations, may be required to meet goals 3.b.2 and 4.b.2, which relate to student acquisition of 21st Century Skills, as identified in enGauge: 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners. This continued need for ELRs is addressed by goal 5c.1 below.
Networking and Telecommunications Infrastructure
Existing District Networking and Telecommunications Infrastructure will be sufficient to meet many of the goals in the curriculum and professional development sections of the plan. (See section 5b below for additional detail on existing Networking and Telecommunications Infrastructure.) However, with the increased access to and creation of multi-media online resources by students and teaches - and with the increased use of technologies such as video streaming and video conferencing, bandwidth needs are expected to increase over the duration of this plan. Plans are already in place - and funding is already allocated - to provide every site with a minimum 200Gb link to the hub zone. Each hub will then have dual 200 Mb links to the district office. These will be upgraded to dual 1 Gb links by the end of the 2007-2008 school year. At each site, the current bandwidth is 100 Mb school wide. All switches are layer three switches, standardized on Cisco, including wireless access points. However, due to increased needs in the computer labs and multimedia rooms, the TIS department plans to introduce 1 Gb speeds to these locations during the next three years. This need for additional bandwidth is addressed in Objective 5c.3.2 below.
Wireless access presents the greatest anticipated need in networking infrastructure. At present, only the EETT funded middle schools and one elementary school (Edward Wenzlaff) provide wireless access in all instructional areas. With the increasing use of wireless computing devices in the District, this need is expected to increase dramatically in the next three years, particularly at one-to-one pilot program sites. High Schools will be given priority for new wireless access points, followed by elementary schools. By 2009-2010, wireless access should be available in all instructional areas district wide. At the same time, as one-to-one pilot sites are implemented, these classrooms will require a 10:1 computer-to-accesspoint ratio in order to provide reliable and fast access for students and teachers in the pilot program. This need for additional wireless access is addressed in Objective 5c.3.3 below.
If wireless access is required at a one-to-one capacity on a site wide basis, the TIS department anticipates that each middle school will require 12 to 18 additional Cisco 1200 access points. The high schools currently have some "hot spots" sufficient to handle about 15 laptops. Complete wireless coverage for a high school would require approximately 42 Cisco 1200's, or for the level of coverage needed for a one-to-one initiative, 84 Cisco 1200's. Edward Wenzlaff elementary school would require about 13 Cisco 1200's for one-to-one level coverage. All other elementary schools would require about 15 Cisco 1200's for complete coverage, or 30 Cisco 1200's to provide coverage for a one-to-one solution. Some sites currently have access in the staff lounge, and the demand for this is expected to increase as well.
Physical Plant Modifications
In most cases, the physical plant is sufficient to support the curriculum and professional development sections of the plan.
There is currently sufficient electrical capacity in the necessary parts of the schools. There are also sufficient outlets in the classrooms and libraries to support the hardware and infrastructure planned for each site. When new computer labs, or mobile labs, are added, additional capacity may be required, but the existing electrical panels are easily upgraded if needed.
In addition, storage rooms and classrooms in which infrastructure, hardware, and electronic resources reside are secure. Additional alarm systems (or perhaps camera systems) may be necessary as additional resources are acquired.
Cabling specifications have been established by the TIS department.[37] All hardware and ancillary wiring is configured in a way that is safe for students to move about without creating a fire hazard. All cabling is in place in accordance with fire and safety codes. This is reviewed by the Planning department as well as Maintenance and Operations. The fire marshal is consulted and random inspections are held to ensure continuing compliance.
There is safe and secure access to labs that are used during non-school hours by students and/or the community. School buildings, property, and users are safe and protected. Background checks, fingerprint checks, and reference checks are used to screen all contractors.
The TIS department anticipates two additional needs related to physical plant. First, a new cooling system is required for the District Office Hub (DO-HUB) server room.[38] Second, where interactive white boards (such as SMART boards or Active Boards) and projectors are required in classrooms, these will need to be properly and safely mounted.
The continued need for physical plant modifications is addressed in goal 5c.4 below.
Technical Support
Existing District Technical Support will be sufficient to meet many of the goals in the curriculum and professional development sections of the plan. (See section 5b below for additional detail on existing Technical Support.) However, these resources are increasingly stretched thin, and technical support needs will only increase over the next three years, particularly given the need to support significantly more computers (due to the lower student-to-computer ratios and the one-to-one pilot program). The TIS department projects a need to reduce their technician to computer ratio from 1000:1 to a more reasonable 500:1 in order to sufficiently support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 though 4b.9. Because this same period will see the student-to-computer ratio decrease (thus increasing the number of computers), and the student body is expected to grow by 2% per year (thus increasing the number of computers), the number of technicians needed will increase dramatically, from the current level of 5 technicians to a projected need of 14 technicians by 2009-2010. Figure 33 below depicts this need. Figure 34 depicts the anticipated cost.[39]
This need for increased technical support is addressed in goal 5C.5 below.
Though it is not strictly necessary, and though there would be those who had to give up an old system to learn a new one, both teachers and technical support staff have expressed a desire to see the District standardize on specific curricular software titles. This standardization would allow the creation of training manuals and online FAQs. In addition, technical staff could then be trained to support specific titles.
In addition, the district would benefit from a program that allows students to provide technical support. Such a plan would need to include significant technical and customer service training for the students, possibly including certifications such as the MCSE, A+, MCP, or N+. This might appear as part of a school-to-career technical education program.
[pic]
Figure 33. Technician Needs 2007-2010
[pic]
Figure 34. Technician Costs 2007-2010
Safe and Secure Computing Environment
The District currently provides a safe and secure computing environment sufficient to meet many of the goals in the curriculum and professional development sections of the plan. (See section 5b below for additional detail on the existing safe and secure computing environment.) However, purchase requests for new hardware, software, recurring subscriptions, and upgrades or maintenance contracts will need to be filled as necessary and as funding allows. In addition, it is recognized that providing internet filtering via home internet access for one-to-one pilot program students may become a necessity. Also one-to-one laptops may require anti-theft hardware or software, and encryption may be necessary for sensitive data. These safety and security needs are addressed by goal 5c.6 below.
Policies and Procedures
The district currently provides an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for employees and a variety of AUPs for students, depending upon grade level and subject area.[40] However, these AUPs are largely out of date and do not address current technologies or trends. In addition, student email use is currently not allowed, except through a labor-intensive teacher-moderated system at . Teachers have expressed a need for students to be able to use third-party email providers (or a district provided email address) on the school network, particularly if students are expected to become technically proficient and acquire 21st Century Skills. Also, there is currently no written policy for students or staff regarding the use of instant messaging, video conferencing, and two-way web technologies such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts. This need for updated and additional policies and procedures is addressed in goal 5c.7 below.
5b. Describe the existing hardware, Internet access, electronic learning resources, and technical support already in the district that could be used to support the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan.
This section of the plan provides a description of the existing hardware, Internet access, electronic learning resources, and technical support already in the district that could be used to support the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan. It also describes existing efforts to provide a safe and secure computing environment.
Hardware
The following hardware profile for the district is based on the 2006 California School Technology Survey.[41]
The current student-to-computer ratio is 5.88 to 1. (The ratio of students per Internet connected computer is approximately 6.49 to 1). Of these machines, 14.53% are less than year old, 12.53% are 1 to 2 years old, 10.69% are 2 to 3 years old, 16.89% are 3 to 4 years old, and unfortunately, 45.35% are more than four years old. Despite the clear need for replacement computers, only 3.67% were projected to be retired in the 2006-2007 school year, with only 6.65% expected to be added. Though this is a net gain of 2.98%, the number of computers more than four years old is expected to increase.
These computers are located primarily in classrooms (66.22%). An additional 27.33% are located in computer labs, with 5.66% in libraries, and only .78% located elsewhere on campus.
Almost all computers are currently connected to the Internet (98.6%). In addition, 90.58% of all classrooms are connected to the Internet. Both of these numbers are expected to increase this year.
Internet Access
The District currently provides a Wide Area Network (WAN) and Local Area Networks (LANs) in a star topology with redundant links for failover. The current design is appropriate for the local environment and is at the top of the industry standards for reliability and speed.
Existing WAN Infrastructure
The District Office Hub (DO-HUB) has a 45 Mb connection to the Riverside County Office of Education (RCOE), which serves as the ISP for the district.
The DO-HUB is currently connected to the Cathedral City Hub (CC-HUB) and the Palm Springs Hub (PS-HUB) via dual 200 Mb microwave radios. Dual 200 Mb radios are also in place between the PS-HUB and the Landau Tower. The Desert Hotsprings Hub (DH-HUB) connects to the PS-HUB through a 100 Mb Radio. During the 2007-2008 school year the District will upgrade each of these links to a 1 Gb capacity. This upgrade is already funded and much of the equipment has already been purchased. The 100 Mb connection between the DH-HUB and the PS-HUB will be upgraded before the end of the 2006-2007 school year.
Each school site connects to the nearest Hub via a single 200 Mb radio. All of these school site links will be upgraded to 1 Gb links over the next two years as well. Again, this has already been budgeted. In addition to the primary link, each school has a back-up link. Though the older T-1 links are currently turned off, the hardware is also still in place in case of an emergency.
The exiting WAN infrastructure is illustrated in Figure 35 below.
[pic]
Figure 35. Existing WAN Infrastructure 2007
Existing LAN Infrastructure
Each school site has a fiber backbone from the Main Distribution Facility (MDF) to all Internal Distribution Facilities (IDFs), which are then connected to each instructional or administrative area via 100 Mb ethernet. Cisco access points currently provide wireless internet access, (including VLAN security and mac address filtering) to a limited number of instructional and administrative areas. As part of the EETT competative grants, all four middle schools currently have schoolwide wireless coverage. One elementary school, Edward Wenzlaff, has school wide coverage as well.
With two exceptions, the Technology and Information Services department (TIS) projects that this level of internet access will be sufficient to meet the district's bandwidth needs through the duration of this plan (July 2007 to June 2010). The first exception is the obvious bottleneck - the 45 Mb connetion to the RCOE. Unfortunately, at this time the RCOE cannot accommotade additional bandwidth. Through the judicious use of caching and traffic filtering the District maximizes this available bandwidth. The second exception is the anticipated need for increased wireless access.
Electronic Learning Resources
Hub sites (and additional sites depending on need) have curriculum software servers that host many titles used at multiple sites. Additional resources are installed on individual machines or stored at individual sites. The following is a representative list of Electronic Learning Resources in use throughout the District:
• Accelerated Math
• Accelerated Reader
• Adobe Creative Suite
• Adobe GoLive
• Adobe Premier
• Apperture
• Apple Works
• Atomic Learning
• Autocad
• Brainpop
• Central Skills
• CHSEE Software Suite (Title?)
• Dreamweaver
• Destiny (including home access)
• MPower
• Final Cut
• Foreign Language Software (specific titles?)
• iLife
• Inspiration
• Inspiration Data
• InterWrite Pad Software
• Kidbiz3000
• Kidspiration
• KidPix
• Learn to Read
• Math Blaster
• Mavis Beacon
• Microsoft Office
• Orchard
• Open Court Online (including home access)
• Premier
• Qwizdom Suite
• Read180
• Reading Blaster
• Scholastic Reading Counts
• Scholastic Reading Inventory
• School Kit
• STAR Reading
• STAR Math
• Technology Literacy Challenge Software
• Type to Learn Jr.
• Ultra Key
• Understanding Math Plus
• Understanding Numeration Plus
• United Streaming
• Various Supplementary Software Included with Approved Textbooks
• Waterford Early Reading Program
• Zangle (including home access)
Addition electronic learning resources are in use in individual classrooms. This list represents programs that are common in the district.
Technical Support
Technical support needs are addressed to ensure that the hardware, LANs, WANs, and peripherals function adequately and that problems are addressed in an acceptable response time. Various network monitoring tools are used to identify and respond to network problems. In addition, a helpdesk system that tracks and escalates calls is in use. According to helpdesk records, 70 percent of all calls to the helpdesk are resolved during the call. Work order requests are then normally resolved within two working days.
The help desk technician was recently made a full time position, and this person resolves as many issues as possible over the phone. Five full-time technicians then respond to work orders as necessary. An additional three technicians and the network manager provide support for the network backbone infrastructure. In addition, four other staff members in the TIS department provides end-user software support for enterprise services such as email and the student information system, Zangle. Other departments or specialists within Educational Services provide most curriculum related software support. The certificated Educational Technology Specialist provides significant and ongoing support for teachers, particularly those involved with the EETT competitive grants.
According to the 2006 California School Technology Survey, the average hardware fix time is two to five days, and the current technical support staffing is at .13 FTE's per 1000 students in both certificated and classified support. In addition, curriculum support staffing is at .23 FTE's for certificated support and .16 for classified support. (See appendix X for a detailed graphical representation of this data.)
Safe and Secure Computing Environment
The District provides a safe and secure computing environment for staff and students. Tools used to accomplish this purpose include firewalls, intrusion detection, anti-virus, audit systems and encryption for sensitive data. The District also incorporates VLANs with MAC address access lists to segment the student and administrative networks in order to protect confidential data.
Specific hardware and software being used to provide a safe and secure computing environment include the following.
• A dual Cisco Pix Firewall (w/fail over) filters all Internet traffic.
• iPrism filters all Internet traffic.
• ePrism filters all email traffic.
• MacAfee Enterprise provides virus protection for PC and Mac computers (and an additional filter for all email traffic).
• Active Directory provides group policies for students and teachers (with elevated privileges for technology coaches).
• Active Directory is also used to manage software installs and updates.
From any location on the network, teachers and students can access their data (in shared network drives). Administrative data, however, are somewhat limited to admin-only areas of the network for security reasons. Currently PSUSD network files are not accessible form home, though it is a possibility that may be exercised over the next three years.
Needs in section 5a that have not been addressed here in 5b will be addressed by the goals presented in section 5c below.
5c. List of clear benchmarks and a timeline for obtaining the hardware, infrastructure, learning resources and technical support required to support the other plan components.
The following goals and objectives have been developed by the Educational Technology Planning Committee to guide the implementation of the hardware, infrastructure, learning resources and technical support required to support the other plan components. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee will monitor progress toward these goals, evaluate their effectiveness, and modify them as necessary (see section 5d).
5c.1. Software Goal - The District will provide the software and Electronic Learning Resources (ELRs) necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9.
5c.1.1 Objective 1 - The District will provide the software and Electronic Learning Resources (ELRs) necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9, as measured by the annual TIS audit and purchasing requests.[42]
• Baseline 2006-2007: See list of existing software ELRs in section 5b above.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for new software, recurring subscriptions, and upgrades/maintenance are filled as necessary and as funding allows.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for new software, recurring subscriptions, and upgrades/maintenance are filled as funding allows.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for new software, recurring subscriptions, and upgrades/maintenance are filled as funding allows.
5c.1.2. Objective 2 - All technology related purchases will be sent to the TIS department for review and approval through the Galaxy purchasing software. (In addition, the TIS department will be consulted as early as possible during the purchasing process.)
• Baseline 2006-2007: Technology related purchases are often sent to the TIS department for review and approval, but on an informal basis. (TIS is sometimes consulted late in the purchasing process or after a purchase is made.)
• Benchmark 2007-2008: All technology related purchases will be sent to the TIS department for review and approval through the Galaxy purchasing software. (The TIS department will be consulted as early as possible during the purchasing process.)
• Benchmark 2008-2009: All technology related purchases will be sent to the TIS department for review and approval through the Galaxy purchasing software. (The TIS department will be consulted as early as possible during the purchasing process.)
• Benchmark 2009-2010: All technology related purchases will be sent to the TIS department for review and approval through the Galaxy purchasing software. (The TIS department will be consulted as early as possible during the purchasing process.)
5c.1.3. Objective 3 - The Advisory Committee will establish and maintain a standardized list of approved software and ELRs to guide purchasing and technical support decisions.
• Baseline 2006-2007: No standardized list of approved software and ELRs exists.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The Advisory Committee will create a process for establishing and maintaining a standardized list of approved software and ELRs to guide purchasing and technical support decisions. This will include identification and evaluation of existing software and ELRs that serve the same purpose. The committee will use CLRN as a guiding resource in this process. (Note: A subcommittee can be formed for this purpose.)
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The Advisory Committee will establish a standardized list of approved software and ELRs to guide purchasing and technical support decisions.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The Advisory Committee will maintain a standardized list of approved software and ELRs to guide purchasing and technical support decisions.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the benchmarks above, particularly under objectives 1 and 3.
2. Each year, the Technology & Information Services (TIS) department will conduct the annual audit. See appendix M for details on this process.
3. Each year, the Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will review technology purchases quarterly and the TIS audit results annually to ensure compliance with objectives 2 and 3. This can be completed by a subcommittee including representatives from both TIS and Fiscal Services. See section 5d below for addition information on the monitoring and evaluation process.
5c.2. Hardware Goal - The District will provide the hardware (computers and peripherals) necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9.
5c.2.1 Objective 1 - The District will provide the hardware (computers and peripherals) necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9, as measured by the annual TIS audit.
• Baseline 2006-2007: See section 5b: Hardware above.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for new hardware, computers, and peripherals are filled as necessary and as funding allows.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for new hardware, computers, and peripherals are filled as necessary and as funding allows.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for new hardware, computers, and peripherals are filled as necessary and as funding allows.
5c.2.2. Objective 2 - The District will provide all students (including those in ELL, GATE, and Special Education) with appropriate access to technology, as measured by the District student to computer ratio.
• Baseline 2005-2006: District Student-to-Computer Ratio (Internet Connected Computers) = 7.01:1 as of 2006 School Technology Survey.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 7:1
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 6:1
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 5:1[43]
5c.2.3. Objective 3 - All technology related purchases will be sent to the TIS department for review and approval through the Galaxy purchasing software. (In addition, the TIS department will be consulted as early as possible during the purchasing process.)
• Baseline 2006-2007: Technology related purchases are often sent to the TIS department for review and approval, but on an informal basis.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: All technology related purchases will be sent to the TIS department for review and approval through the Galaxy purchasing software.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: All technology related purchases will be sent to the TIS department for review and approval through the Galaxy purchasing software.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: All technology related purchases will be sent to the TIS department for review and approval through the Galaxy purchasing software.
5c.2.4. Objective 4 - The Advisory Committee will establish and maintain a standardized list of approved hardware (computers and peripherals) and minimum specifications to guide purchasing decisions.
• Baseline 2006-2007: Minimum specifications have been established.[44]
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The Advisory Committee will create a process for establishing and maintaining a standardized list of approved hardware (computers and peripherals) and minimum specifications to guide purchasing decisions. (Note: A subcommittee can be formed for this purpose.)
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The Advisory Committee will establish a standardized list of approved hardware (computers and peripherals) and minimum specifications to guide purchasing decisions.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The Advisory Committee will maintain a standardized list of approved hardware (computers and peripherals) and minimum specifications to guide purchasing decisions.
5c.2.5. Objective 5 - The District will implement one-to-one pilot programs in order to better understand an environment in which each student will have access to a computer whenever necessary to meet the goals in sections 3d and 3e.
• Baseline 2006-2007: The District has no one-to-one initiative.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The District will implement a three one-to-one pilot programs: one elementary classroom, one middle school classroom, and one high school classroom. Each program will be hosted in one of the three different geographical hubs of the district. (A total of three pilot teachers)
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The District will expand the one-to-one pilot programs to include a total of nine programs: one elementary program, one middle school program, and one high school program (freshmen) in each of three hubs. The three existing pilot programs will expand to include a second teacher. An effort will be made to keep students who participated during the previous year in the program for another year. (A total of 12 pilot teachers)
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The District will expand the one-to-one pilot programs to include one pilot program at each site. All existing pilot programs will expand to include an additional teacher. An effort will be made to keep students who participated during the previous year in the program for another year. (A total of 48 pilot teachers, given the 24 existing sites.) Note: Alternatively, the benchmarks for objective 6 can be aligned with opportunities to open new schools. Note: Perhaps AVID is a natural program for implementing at the high school level. GATE may be a natural for K-8.)
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the benchmarks above, particularly under objectives 4 and 5.
2. Each year, the Technology & Information Services (TIS) department will conduct the annual audit. See appendix M for details on this process.
3. Each year, the Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will review technology purchases quarterly and the TIS audit results annually to ensure compliance with objectives 2, 3, and 4. This can be completed by a subcommittee including representatives from both TIS and Fiscal Services. See section 5d below for addition information on the monitoring and evaluation process.
4. See also the details related to the one-to-one initiatives provided in goal 3f.2.
5c.3. Infrastructure Goal - The District will provide the networking and telecommunications infrastructure necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9.[45]
5c.1.1 Objective 1 - The District will provide the networking and telecommunications infrastructure necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9, as measured by the annual TIS audit.
• Baseline 2006-2007: See section 5b: Internet Access above.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for networking and telecommunications infrastructure are filled as necessary and as funding allows.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for networking and telecommunications infrastructure are filled as necessary and as funding allows.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for networking and telecommunications infrastructure are filled as necessary and as funding allows.
5c.3.2 Objective 2 - The District will increase bandwidth capacity in order to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9.
• Baseline 2006-2007: Upgrades are underway that will provide all sites with a minimum 200 meg link to a hub site. Each hub has a minimum dual 200 meg link to the district office. The District has a 45 meg link to the RCOE.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: All sites will have a minimum 200 meg link to a hub site. Each hub will have a minimum dual 200 meg links to the district office. The District will have 45 meg link to the RCOE.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: All sites will have a minimum 200 meg link to a hub site. Each hub will have a dual 200 meg link to the district office. Some hubs will have a dual 1 gig link to the district office. The District will have 45 meg link to the RCOE.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: All sites will have a minimum 200 meg link to a hub site. Each hub will have a dual 1 gig link to the district office. The District will have 45 meg link to the RCOE.
5c.3.3 Objective 3 - The District will provide wireless connectivity at all sites, with additional capacity in 1:1 pilot classrooms.
• Baseline: All Middle Schools have wireless connectivity in all instructional areas due to the EETT grant.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: All high schools and all middle schools will have wireless connectivity in all instructional areas and 100% of Pilot Sites (3 sites with 3 classrooms total) will have a10:1 laptop-to-accesspoint ratio in all 1:1 pilot classrooms.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: All schools will have wireless connectivity in all instructional areas and 100% of Pilot Sites (9 sites with 12 classrooms total) will have a 10:1 laptop-to-accesspoint ratio in all 1:1 pilot classrooms.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: All schools will have wireless connectivity in all instructional areas and 10:1 laptop-to-accesspoint ratio in all 1:1 pilot classrooms (48 classrooms).
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the benchmarks above, particularly under objectives 2 and 3.
2. Each year, the Technology & Information Services (TIS) department will conduct the annual audit. See appendix M for details on this process.
3. Each year, the Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will review TIS audit results annually to ensure compliance with all objectives. This can be completed by a subcommittee including representatives from both TIS and Fiscal Services. See section 5d below for addition information on the monitoring and evaluation process.
5c.4. Physical Plant Goal - The District will provide the physical plant modifications necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9.
5c.1.1 Objective - The District will provide the physical plant modifications necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9, as measured by the annual TIS audit.
• Baseline 2006-2007: The physical plant meets the current needs at each site.[46]
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for physical plant modifications are filled as necessary and as funding allows (including interactive white boards, overhead data projectors, and other classroom modifications as requested).
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for physical plant modifications are filled as necessary and as funding allows (including interactive white boards, overhead data projectors, and other classroom modifications as requested).
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for physical plant modifications are filled as necessary and as funding allows (including interactive white boards, overhead data projectors, and other classroom modifications as requested).
Implementation Plan:
1. See the detail provided in the benchmarks above.
2. Each year, the Technology & Information Services (TIS) department will conduct the annual audit. See appendix M for details on this process.
3. Each year, the Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will review the TIS audit results annually to ensure compliance with the objective above. This can be completed by a subcommittee including representatives from both TIS and Fiscal Services. A representative from Maintenance and Operations might also be included. See section 5d below for addition information on the monitoring and evaluation process.
5c.5. Technical Support Goal - The District will provide the technical support necessary to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1 and professional development goals 4b.1 through 4b.9.
5c.9.1. Objective 1 - The district will provide staffing for the Technology and Information Systems (TIS) department necessary to support goals 5a.1 through 5a.8, as measured by the computer to technician ratio.
• Baseline 2006-2007: Approximately 1000:1
• Benchmark 2007-2008: 750:1
• Benchmark 2008-2009: 500:1
• Benchmark 2009-2010: 350:1 (Note: Extra support needed for 1:1 pilot sites)
5c.9.2. Objective 2 - The district will provide professional development for TIS Staff necessary to support goals 5a.1 through 5a.8, as measured by attendance records and training certifications.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: Professional development will be provided as needed. In addition, TIS staff will be certified as necessary to support the 1:1 pilot program and necessary infrastructure, including help desk support.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: Professional development will be provided as needed. In addition, TIS staff will be certified as necessary to support the 1:1 pilot program and necessary infrastructure, including help desk support.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: Professional development will be provided as needed. In addition, TIS staff will be certified as necessary to support the 1:1 pilot program and necessary infrastructure, including help desk support.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the benchmarks above, particularly under objective 2.
2. Each year, the District will hire new technicians as necessary to meet the benchmarks in objective 1. This is expected to be two new technicians in 2007-2008, three additional technicians in 2008-2009, and four more additional technicians in 2009-2010.[47]
3. Each year, the Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will review the level of technical support annually to ensure compliance with both objectives. This can be completed by a subcommittee including representatives from both TIS and Fiscal Services. See section 5d below for addition information on the monitoring and evaluation process.
5c.6. Safety and Security Goal - The District will provide a safe and secure computing environment for students and staff.
5c.6.1 Objective 1 - The District will provide a safe and secure computing environment for students and staff, to be measured by help desk records and the annual TIS audit.
• Baseline 2006-2007: See section 5b: Safe and Secure Computing Environment above.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for safe and secure computing are filled as necessary and as funding allows.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for safe and secure computing are filled as necessary and as funding allows.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The annual TIS audit and purchasing requests for safe and secure computing are filled as necessary and as funding allows.
5c.6.2 Objective 2 - The District will provide Internet filtering for home use of 1:1 pilot program computers, if necessary. (For example, the District might provide a proxy server for laptops to access the internet.)
• Baseline 2006-2007: There is currently no Internet filtering provided for home use of computers.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The Advisory Committee and TIS department will study the issues related to Internet filtering for home use of 1:1 computers and make a recommendation of policies and procedures for board approval.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: If the board deems it necessary, the District will pilot policies and procedures for providing Internet filtering for home use of 1:1 computers. Policies and procedures will be evaluated and modified as needed.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: If the board deems it necessary, the District will implement the modified policies and procedures for providing Internet filtering for home use of 1:1 computers.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the benchmarks above, particularly under objective 2.
2. Each year, the Technology & Information Services (TIS) department will conduct the annual audit. See appendix M for details on this process.
3. Each year, the Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will review help desk records quarterly and the TIS audit results annually to ensure compliance with these objectives. This can be completed by a subcommittee including representatives from both TIS and Fiscal Services. See section 5d below for addition information on the monitoring and evaluation process.
5c.7. Policies and Procedures Goal - The District will establish policies and procedures for student and staff use of the Internet, including email, Instant Messaging, video conferencing, and two-way web technologies such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts.
5c.7.1. Objective 1 - The District will establish policies and procedures for student and staff use of the Internet, including email, Instant Messaging, video conferencing, and two-way web technologies such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts.
• Baseline 2006-2007: See existing Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs).[48] Currently student email is not allowed (except when using Gaggle). There is currently no policy for Instant Messaging, video conferencing, and two-way web technologies such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The Advisory Committee will study the issues of student and staff use of the Internet (including email, Instant Messaging, video conferencing, and two-way web technologies such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts) and make a recommendation of policies and procedures for board approval. (Note: A subcommittee can be formed for this purpose.)
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The district will pilot policies and procedures for student and staff use of the Internet, including email, Instant Messaging, video conferencing, and two-way web technologies such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts. Policies and procedures will be evaluated and modified as needed.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The District will implement the modified policies and procedures for student and staff use of the Internet, including email, Instant Messaging, video conferencing, and two-way web technologies such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts.
5c.7.2 Objective 2 - The District will provide or allow student use of email in order to support curriculum goals 3d.1 through 3h.1.
• Baseline: Only Gaggle is permitted for student use. Otherwise, no email access permitted. The use of Gaggle requires labor-intensive teacher moderation.
• Benchmark 2007-2008: The Advisory Committee and TIS staff will explore options for providing or allowing student email accounts that do not require labor intensive teacher moderation.
• Benchmark 2008-2009: The District will pilot options for providing or allowing student email accounts that do not require labor intensive teacher moderation.
• Benchmark 2009-2010: The District will provide or allow student email accounts that do not require labor intensive teacher moderation.
Implementation Plan:
1. See the details provided in the benchmarks above.
2. Each year, the Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) will review technology policies and procedures, including Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) annually to ensure compliance with these objectives. See section 5d below for addition information on the monitoring and evaluation process.
5d. Description of the process that will be used to monitor whether the goals and benchmarks are being reached within the specified time frame.
This section of the plan will be monitored and evaluated by The District Educational Technology Advisory Committee.[49] See sections 3i & j for additional detail about the advisory committee.) The Advisory Committee will meet quarterly to coordinate technology use between programs, to focus on technology needs, and to integrate the implementation of the above goals into existing programs. The advisory committee will support the monitoring and evaluation of this section of the plan by...
• Monitoring and evaluating help desk records, purchasing requests, and the annual TIS audit.
• Monitoring and evaluating District survey results to measure progress on benchmarks district-wide.
• Monitoring and evaluating state technology survey results as necessary.
• Acting on their analysis of the above evaluations to improve implementation of the tech plan goals as needed.
• Annually reviewing progress on technology plan benchmarks, evaluating the effectiveness of the technology plan, and revising the technology plan as needed.
An Infrastructure Subcommittee will be formed to focus on issues relevant to this section of the plan, and to provide support and guidance in these matters for the Advisory Committee as a whole.
At the site level, technology coaches will aid in the monitoring and evaluation of this plan by…
• Providing the “first line of defense” by providing informal technical support to other teachers, and by helping to identify which issues need to be escalated to the TIS department help desk.
• Implementing District surveys measuring progress on benchmarks at their site.
• Implementing state technology surveys as necessary.
• Communicating site needs and issues to the district.
• Communicating district needs and issues to the site.
Feedback from technology coaches will be shared at each Advisory Committee meeting. The Advisory Committee will then report to other leadership bodies as prescribed in section 3j.
6. Funding and Budget
This section of the plan addresses the resources necessary to accomplish the curriculum, professional development, and infrastructure goals laid out in the previous sections. It also represents the pragmatic limits of what the District can accomplish given its fiscal resources. This section begins by providing a list of established and potential funding sources and cost savings opportunities, both present and future. It then provides estimated implementation costs for the term of the plan (three years), including a description of the level of ongoing technical support the district will need to provide. A description of the District’s replacement policy for obsolete equipment is also included, as is a description of the feedback loop used to monitor progress and update funding and budget decisions, which elaborates on the plan to establish technology coaches and an Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating this plan as a whole.
6a. List of established and potential funding sources and cost savings, present and future.
This section of the plan provides a list of established and potential funding sources and cost savings opportunities, both present and future.
Funding Sources
The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following established and potential sources of educational technology funding for the District. Many sources are annotated with former or alternative names and with potential uses.
• AB 430 Administrator Training Program (Formerly Principal Training Program [AB 75]) - PD for all new administrators
• Agua Caliente Grants
• After School Education and Safety (Proposition 49)
• Anderson Grants (Competative valley-wide, up to 20k for computers, usually smaller)
• BTSA (Standard 9 and 16) - PD for all new teachers
• CAHSEE Intensive Instruction and Services (Diagnostic assessment and interpretive materials)
• CAHSEE Supplemental Materials (Electronic Format) - Possible next year, 2007-2008
• California High School Partnership Academy Grants (currently at PSHS)
• Career Technical Education Equipment Funds
• Cochella Valley Economic Parnership (CVEP) matching grants
• Perkins Funds - must be tied to career pathways and/or sequence of classes
• Discretionary Block Grant (School and District, School use depends on site plans)
• District General Fund (TIS department, "lottery money" for wiring)
• E-Rate (Phones Only)
• EIA/LEP Funds (Use sepends on site plans and district ELD coordinator)
• ELL Supplemental Instructional Materials
• G.O. Bonds (To wire new schools)
• High Priority Schools Grant Program (3 schools identified, based on site plan - funding only at two sites now: DHSHS & JC)
• Indian Wells Grants (Competative, $3000 each)
• Instructional Materials, Library Materials, and Education Technology Block Grant (Paying for CUE conference for administrators, otherwise undetermined)
• Instructional Materials Block Grant (IMF) - "This program is also a vehicle to provide other instructional materials, including supplementary and technology-based materials, once every student has a basic textbook in each core area."
• K12 Voucher Program (Microsoft Settlement) - approx. $2 mil expected
• Palm Springs High School Foundation ("Academic Boosters" funding depends on foundation decisions)
• PTO (Site Based... very limited)
• RCOE Regional Occupation Program (ROP)
• School and Library Improvement Block Grant (SB825 Bock Grant, SIP and library now combined) - used for hardware and software
• School Enrichment Block Grant - Possible next year, 2007-2008
• Small Learning Communities Grant (Palm Springs High School)
• SSPs that estalish Career Academies
• State Technology Fund (One-Time Fund)
• Title I Funds (Depends on site plan)
• Title II Funds (Tech PD for teachers)
• Title II-D: EETT (Formual and Competative) - Note formula grant down 45%, expected to drop more
• Title III Funds (For ELD software and hardware)
• Title IV, Part B, 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program (Not currently applied)
• Title V Funds (Primarily for Salaries, including Tech Salaries, Including Ed Tech Specialist, some software licenses)
Regarding donations, any donated computers or equipment must meet the Ditrict minimum specifications for donated equipment. (See appendix X for details). It is also recognized as important that the District collect the necessary disposal fees for any donated equipment.
Savings Sources
The Educational Technology Planning Committee has also identified the following savings sources of cost savings for the District. Some sources are annoted with additional details.
• CalSave[50]
• CDW-G Education[51]
• CMAS Contract The California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) - Requires a 1% fee, which vendors often pay. Most resellers and sellers are involved.[52]
• Coporate partnership with Apple, Inc.
• Educational Discounts whenever available
• Microsoft Select License[53]
• PEPPM - This contract for state organizations includes a spreadsheet of vendors for general technology needs that can be met by multiple resellers. If purchases are made from this list, going to bid may be unnecessary.[54]
• WSCA Contract - Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA)[55]
The District continues to seek additional funding sources and cost savings on an ongoing bases. Tools such as the SSCal CAT Wizard[56], CLRN[57], TechSets[58], and TICAL[59] have proven valuable in this regard, as have e-mail alerts from the State and County departments of education. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee will review funding sources, including any new potential funding sources, at each quarterly meeting. To ensure adequate funding to implement and maintain existing and new district technology initiatives, all potential funding sources will be evaluated and coordinated on an ongoing basis. Furthermore, budget constraints necessitate a close examination of one time or new costs versus recurring costs of maintaining district services and infrastructure.
6b. Estimate implementation costs for the term of the plan (three to five years).
The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with implementing the Curriculum, Professional Development, and Infrastructure sections of this plan. The major anticipated costs are broken out by professional development, technical support, software, hardware, and infrastructure costs. Estimated amounts are given either on a per year basis or for each year of the plan. These figures are intended for planning purposes only. They are not meant for accounting purposes, nor are they meant to represent a commitment by the District to fully fund each of these needs. These costs must be prioritized along with the costs of other district business, including the construction of new schools.
Professional Development
The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with professional development:
• Technology coaches are one key element of the professional development plan. See section 4d for more details on the role of technology coaches. The level of support the coaches can provide will depend on which of the following funding models is adopted:
o Model 1 - A stipend is provided for 1 coach per elementary school, and 4 coaches per secondary school (one for each core subject area), and 1 coach per alternative school (only 2 total). Each coach would receive the maximum stipend of 7.5% of their salary. (This model is used to calculate the professional development total costs below.) Approximate Cost: $255k/yr.
o Model 2 - Release time (20%) is provided for one coach per school. Approximate cost: $360k to $500k annually.
o Model 3 - A full time technology coach (a Teacher On Special Assignment, or TOSA) is provided for each school site. Approximate Cost: $1.8m to $2.5m.
• The existing Educational Technology Specialist (or Coordinator) has been instrumental in the success of the EETT grants. This position will be retained to provide support and leadership for technology coaches at each site. Estimated Cost: $101k to $137k
• All certificated employees will complete a process of CTAP Level 1 and Level 2 certification. This custom District-specific process will include the professional development necessary to support goals 4b.1 (teaching the standards with technology), 4b.2 (teaching 21st century skills with technology), 4b.3 (teaching the technology scope and sequence), 4b.4 (teaching information literacy), 4b.6 (using technology to make data driven decisions), and 4b.7 (using technology to be accessible to parents). This process will include 4 full days of professional development for each teacher each year (1 day per quarter). A separate curriculum will be offered for technology coaches. (Note: One sub day at $120 for all 1200 teachers costs approximately 144k. Trainers, food, and facilities cost approximately an additional 80k, for a subtotal of $224,000 per day.) Total approximate cost: $896k/yr
• In addition, one-to-one pilot teachers will receive an additional day of training per quarter. This supports goal 4b.5.
o 2007-2008 - Four days of training for three teachers (including the cost of substitutes, trainers, food, and facilities): $5k
o 2008-2009 - Four days of training for nine teachers (including the cost of substitutes, trainers, food and facilities): $15k
o 2009-2010 - Four days of training for thirty-one teachers (including substitutes, trainers, food, and facilities): $52k
• All classified employees who use a computer as part of their job will also complete a process equivalent to CTAP Level 1 certification. This supports goal 4b.9. A full time classified technology trainer will be provided to lead these trainings and create supporting documentation. Approximate Cost: $80k/yr
• All necessary TIS employees will receive certification in the hardware and software they must administer and support. This includes certification repairing and supporting Apple computers so that the district can serve as a certified Apple repair center. Approximate Cost: $75k/yr.
Professional Development Totals:
• 2007-2008: $1.45m
• 2008-2009: $1.45m
• 2009-2010: $1.5m
Figure 36 below depicts each of the costs identified above as a portion of the total costs.
[pic]
Figure 36. Professional Development Costs 2007-2010
Technical Support
The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with technical support staffing (See section 5b and goal 5c.5. for more detail):[60]
• Baseline 2006-2007 (5 Technicians): $335,330
• Benchmark 2007-2008 (7 Technicians): $469,462
• Benchmark 2008-2009 (10 Technicians): $670,660
• Benchmark 2009-2010 (14 Technicians): $938,924
Figure 37 below represents the increasing cost of technical support.[61]
[pic]
Figure 37. Technical Support Costs 2007-2010
Software
The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with computer software purchases or subscriptions:
• Zangle student information system: $130k/yr
• Galaxy financial software: $120k/yr
• Data Director: $15k/yr
• Destiny Library Catalog System: $5k/y
• Internet filtering: $5k/yr
• eMail filtering: $5k/yr
• Wats Up Pro SNMP $3500/yr
• Remote Anything $3000/yr
• Additional ELRs, including Renaissance Place: $50k/yr
Software Totals:[62]
• 2007-2008: $336.5k
• 2008-2009: $336.5k
• 2009-2010: $336.5k
Figure 38 below depicts these recurring costs.
[pic]
Figure 38. Software Costs 2007-2010
Hardware
The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with computer hardware:
• Student-to-Computer Ratio: Figure 39 below depicts the cost of computers needed each year (2007-2010) to replace aging computers, account for the estimated growth in the student population, and still reduce the student to computer ratio as dictated by curriculum objectives 3f.1.1 through 3f.1.5.
o Benchmark 2007-2008 (7:1): $2.9m
o Benchmark 2008-2009 (6:1): $2m
o Benchmark 2009-2010 (5:1): $2.1m
[pic]
Figure 39. Student-to-Computer Ratio Costs 2007-2010
• One-to-One Pilot Program: Figure 40 below depicts the costs of computers needed each year (2007-2010) to implement the one-to-one pilot programs called for by curriculum objective 3f.1.6.
o Benchmark 2007-2008: $.6m
o Benchmark 2008-2009: $1.2m (Note: this can account for the $1 million of new and growth costs above.)
o Benchmark 2009-2010: $2m (Note: this can account for the $1.3 million of new and growth costs above.)
[pic]
Figure 40. One-to-One Costs 2007-2010
• Teacher and Administrator computers: There are currently approximately 2000 administrative computers in use district wide. These will be replaced at a rate of 20% per year, starting with the oldest machines and/or the greatest need. (See section 6d below.) Estimated Cost: Approximately $600k/yr.
Hardware Totals (Note that there can be some overlap in these costs, see above):
• 2007-2008: $4m
• 2008-2009: $2.8m
• 2009-2010: $4.1m
[pic]
Figure 41. Hardware Costs 2007-2010
Infrastructure
The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with network infrastructure:
• Internet Service (from RCOE): $60k/yr
• Microwave radio tower yearly maintenance: $60k/yr
• SmartNet maintenance for critical network switches and routers: $15k/yr
• Bandwidth capacity - new WAN switches are already purchased: $0/yr
• Bandwidth capacity - new LAN switches as required: $15k/yr
• Bandwidth capactiy - new Wireless switches (and data drops): Approximately $750 per access point.
o 2007-2008: All High Schools (42 Cisco 1200's each): $95k
o 2008-2009: All Elementary Schools (15 Cisco 1200's each): $169k
o 2009-2010: Any remaining instructional areas : $20k
• Bandwidth capacity - new wireless switches (and data drops) for one-to-one classrooms: Approximately $2000 per classroom ($1500 for access points and $500 for data drops)
o 2007-2008: Three classrooms - $6k
o 2008-2009: Six new classrooms - $12k
o 2009-2010: Twenty-two new classrooms - $44k
• Physical plant - additions and changes (primarily data drops): $30k/yr
• Cable repair: $6k/yr
• Liebert Battery Back-up for server room:
o 2007-2008: $3.2k (one time cost)
Infrastructure Totals:
• 2007-2008: $290.2k
• 2008-2009: $367k
• 2009-2010: $250k
Figure 42 below depicts each of the costs identified above as a portion of these total annual costs.
[pic]
Figure 42. Infrastructure Costs 2007-2010
Overall Costs
The overall annual costs of this plan are summarized below.[63]
• 2007-2008: $6.6m
• 2008-2009: $5.6m
• 2009-2010: $7.1m
• Average Cost: $6.4m/yr
Figure 43 below depicts the professional development, technical support, software, hardware, and infrastructure costs as portions of the overall annual costs reported here.
[pic]
Figure 43. Overall Cost 2007-2010
The estimated costs and figures in this section are intended for planning purposes only. They are not meant for accounting purposes, nor are they meant to represent a commitment by the District to fully fund each of these needs. These costs must be prioritized along with the costs of other district business, including the construction of new schools.
The greatest budget challenges for technology facing the District is going to be maintaining up-to-date student and teacher computers (less than 5 years old) as well as providing timely technical support. Given the uncertainty of the educational technology sources of funding, the District has established the following priorities list to guide allocation:
1. Infrastructure
2. Updated teacher/administrator computers
3. Increased technical support
4. Staff development for teachers and administrators on computer basics and integration
5. Training (Level I and Level II)
6. Updated student computers
7. Curricular software subscriptions
The District will implement the three year technology plan with the known annual technology funding and with new funding opportunities that may arise. Regardless of the level of funding, the District plans to set aside approximately 25% of the annual technology budget for professional development with the remaining 75% going toward hardware, software, infrastructure, technical support, and other costs.
6c. Description of the level of ongoing technical support the district will provide.
Please see the discussion of technical support in sections 5a. and 5b., the technical support goal (5c.5.), and the technical support cost estimates in section 6b. above.
6d. Description of the district’s replacement policy for obsolete equipment.
All administrative computers (including teacher computers) will be replaced every five years. This requires a replacement rate of 20% per year, with priority going to the oldest computers and the users with the highest need. Over the duration of this plan, 60% of all administrative computers, or approximately 1200 computers will be replaced. See the cost estimate of this replacement section 6b above.
Funding permitting, the same pattern will be followed for student computers. However, so many of these machines are already more than five years old that replacement costs will be disproportionately high during the first three years of replacement (the duration of this plan). In addition, more new computers will be added in order to accommodate the expected growth of the student body and to lower the student-to-computer ratio as required by curriculum objectives 3f.1.1 through 3f.1.5. See the cost estimates of this replacement plan in section 6b above.
Printers will only be replaced when they are no longer functional, and only as funding allows. Most staff members, including faculty, can now print to the networked copiers. Other peripherals are replaced as they fail, or as needed. The same policy will be followed with the switches, wireless access points, and other elements of the network infrastructure, such as data drops. Note that much of the network backbone is already scheduled to be upgraded during the duration of this plan, as per infrastructure objective 5c.3.2.
The planning committee also acknowledges the importance of timeliness with respect to replacement when a computer or peripheral breaks down. Currently, when a device breaks down there is often no replacement funding available. The committee hopes that if the funds described above are earmarked for replacements, then broken devices might be replaced in a more timely fashion.
6e. Description of the feedback loop used to monitor progress and update funding and budget decisions.
This section of the plan will be monitored and evaluated by The District Educational Technology Advisory Committee. See sections 3i & j for additional detail about the advisory committee. The Advisory Committee will meet quarterly to coordinate technology use between programs, to focus on technology needs, and to integrate the implementation of the above goals into existing programs. The advisory committee will support the monitoring and evaluation of this section of the plan by...
• Monitoring and evaluating existing and potential funding sources.
• Monitoring and evaluating existing and potential savings sources.
• Monitoring and evaluating District survey results to measure progress on benchmarks district-wide.
• Monitoring and evaluating state technology survey results as necessary.
• Acting on their analysis of the above evaluations to improve implementation of the tech plan goals as needed.
• Annually reviewing progress on technology plan benchmarks, evaluating the effectiveness of the technology plan, and revising the technology plan as needed.
A Funding Subcommittee will be formed to focus on issues relevant to this section of the plan, and to provide support and guidance in these matters for the Advisory Committee as a whole. Educational technology funding will be evaluated by the subcommittee and reported to the advisory committee on a quarterly basis. For this purpose, Galaxy reports of technology spending and available budget will be generated and reviewed quarterly. Which funds should be reviewed and how they should be reviewed will be established during the first meeting of the subcommittee, using this section of the tech plan as a guide. (For Example, technician salaries might only need to be reviewed once a year, but replaced computers might be reviewed quarterly.) The educational technology plan will then be adjusted as necessary on an annual basis.
7. Monitoring and Evaluation
This section of the plan addresses the importance of monitoring progress toward the goals, objectives, and benchmarks laid out in the previous sections of the plan. It also addresses the importance of evaluating the effectiveness of these measures and making adjustments as necessary throughout the duration of the plan. This section begins with a description of how technology’s impact on student learning, student attainment of the curricular goals, and classroom and school management will be evaluated. This is followed by a description of an explicit Schedule for evaluating the effect of the implementation of the plan. There is also a description of how the information obtained through the monitoring and evaluation will be used, an elaboration on the monitoring and evaluation plan presented in sections 3j, 4d, 5d, and 6e.
The contents of this section are conceived such that the Educational Technology Plan can remain a living, mutable, and relevant document throughout the duration of the plan.
7a. Description of how technology’s impact on student learning and attainment of the district’s curricular goals, as well as classroom and school management, will be evaluated.
The impact on student learning in the attainment of curriculum goals will be monitored by using STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting) data and District Multiple Measures data. District multiple measures data consists of regular benchmarks in each of the core curricular areas. Results are entered into and analyzed using Data Director, a data analysis tool . Formative teaching decisions are made based on these benchmarks. These same assessments, along with information from STAR Testing, are used to identify at-risk students and to plan interventions to help students meet curricular goals. These data are also valuable for planning the use of technology to assist in areas where students are not meeting district curriculum goals. Data are reviewed and analyzed at the site and district level to plan technology purchases, identify implementation issues, and plan professional development.
Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation processes and timelines have been established for each goal in sections 3 through 5. Please see the appropriate section for details.
Data that will be monitored and used to evaluate the effectiveness of this plan as a whole include the following:
• STAR Test Data
• CAHSEE Data
• Local Benchmarks in Data Director
• CELDT Data
• Attendance Data
• High School Graduation Data
• District Survey Data (Student, Teacher, Administrator, and Parent)[64]
• 21st Century Skill Survey Data
• Professional Development Evaluation Data
• TIS Help Desk Records
• Galaxy Funding and Budget Records
• Educational Technology Advisory Committee Minutes and Records
Processes that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of this plan as a whole include the following:
• The Director of Standards, Assessment, and Accountability analyzes the above data for trends and identify changes at the district and site level. This analysis is shared with all stakeholders, including the board of education. This serves in a broad sense as a needs assessment for District instructional programs.
• Site principals examine this data at the site, grade/subject, teacher, and student level. Principals focus on identifying where intervention is needed - and which interventions have been successful in the past.
• Site based data teams continue to analyze this data for strengths and weaknesses in content and grade-level specific areas. (This is an important part of the District's new Professional Learning Communities initiative.)
• The Assistant Superintendent of Business Services monitors attendance data and provides quarterly updates for each site. An incentive program is used to encourage sites to improve attendance rates. Attendance data is also shared with the Director of Child Welfare and Attendance who works with the District community aides to improve student attendance.
• The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (including content area specialists, the GATE specialist, the Director of Special Education, and the Director of ELL) reviews this data to identify areas in which technology may have effected results, and areas in which technology might support future improvement. The committee will make recommendations to other bodies for the effective use of technology to support district curricular goals.
Note: At the beginning of the year, STAR data is evaluated. Then after the first benchmark, STAR results can be compared to local benchmark data. Local benchmarks are administered in ELA and Math in grades K-5, and in all core subjects areas in grades 6-12.
Note: All schools have a Single Plan; therefore, the Director of State and Federal Programs, the Director of ELL, and other stakeholders will also review this data to evaluate compliance with all relevant programs.
7b. Schedule for evaluating the effect of plan implementation.
The Educational Technology Planning Committee has established the following schedule for evaluating the implementation of this plan as a whole:
• 2007-2008: The District establishes an Educational Technology Advisory Committee as detailed in section 3j.
• 2007-2010: The Educational Technology Advisory Committee meets quarterly to review progress in meeting the Technology Plan benchmarks for each goal and objective in sections 3 through 5. The committee makes recommendations for modifications to the plan as needed. The plan is revisited and modified on an annual basis, as described in section 3j.
• 2007-2010: The Educational Technology Advisory Committee reports to the board annually and to other bodies as needed, as described in section 3j.
See section 3j and 3i for more details regarding the role of the Advisory Committee and the procedures it will follow. See also sections 4d, 5d, and 6e for additional details related to each section of the plan.
7c. Description of how the information obtained through the monitoring and evaluation will be used.
This section of the plan will be monitored and evaluated by The District Educational Technology Advisory Committee. (See sections 3i & j for additional detail about the advisory committee.) The Advisory Committee will meet quarterly to coordinate technology use between programs, to focus on technology needs, and to integrate the implementation of the above processes into existing programs. The advisory committee will support the monitoring and evaluation of the entire plan by...
• Monitoring and evaluating the data listed in section 7a above.
• Monitoring and evaluating processes listed in section 7a above.
• Monitoring and evaluating the benchmarks and timelines established for each goal in sections 3 through 5.
• Monitoring and evaluating District survey results to measure progress on benchmarks district-wide.
• Monitoring and evaluating state technology survey results as necessary.
• Acting on their analysis of the above evaluations to improve implementation of the tech plan goals as needed.
• Annually reviewing progress on technology plan benchmarks, evaluating the effectiveness of the technology plan, and revising the technology plan as needed.
The information obtained through the monitoring and evaluation of this plan will be used to do the following:
• Update the technology plan.
• Inform district decision makers and stakeholders.
• Make technology purchase recommendations (including software, hardware, and infrastructure).
• Guide the adoption of emerging technologies.
• Integrate technology into the site single plans for the following year.
• Plan future technology professional development.
• Determine technical support needs.
Because the school single plan at each site must address district goals, the monitoring and evaluation of the technology plan will also be an opportunity to monitor and evaluate the integration of these goals into each site single plan, thus ensuring that the goals of this plan are being implemented at the site level.
A Monitoring Subcommittee will be formed to focus on issues relevant to this section of the plan, and to provide support and guidance in these matters for the Advisory Committee as a whole. The Director of Standards, Assessment, and Accountability will lead this subcommittee. Please see the processes listed in section 7a above for additional roles and responsibilities of other stakeholders.
8. Adult Education
This section of the plan describes ways in which this Educational Technology Plan will be developed in collaboration with the District Adult Education program.
8a. If the district has identified adult literacy providers, there is a description of how the program will be developed in collaboration with those providers.
This District is a provider of Adult Education. Its service coverage duplicates the district boundaries and its administrative and instructional facilities are part of the District. As such, it provides an important and powerful outreach to our local community. Many of its students are either parents and/or siblings of our District’s K-12 student population. The advancements achieved through the Adult Education program have a direct positive effect on the academic achievement of our District’s students.
The District believes that every adult learner should have access to (and use of) technology and technology related skills in instructional settings. Technology supports achievement, enabling learners to be creative thinkers, effective communicators, and problem solvers - as well as independent, competent, and contributing members of a family, a dynamic workforce, and a global community.
A new Adult Education Technology Plan has been submitted and is currently under review by the state.[65] According to this plan, the Adult Education agency is connected to the Internet (via District connections) in administrative offices, in classrooms, and in computer labs. The Internet is used by administration, teachers, and students (for both instruction and projects). The program also uses LCD projectors, TV monitors, scanners, digital video cameras, digital cameras, and CD/DVD players. The greatest barriers to making greater use of technology for instruction were reported as lack of financial resources and a need for staff development. In general, the staff scores as novice or independent with most computer skills (on a scale of 0=no experience, 1 = beginner, 2 = novice, 3 = independent, and 4 = expert). Support staff and teachers have similar scores, while the administrator scores much higher.
The Adult Education Technology Plan establishes needs, goals, and objectives in the areas of hardware/connectivity, software, and curriculum. With respect to hardware/connectivity, the Adult Education Program has established a goal to improve access to technology for all students. They plan to purchase four wireless, portable computer units that include 20 laptop computers and two printers; they also plan professional development on the use of these units. The Educational Technology Planning Committee has discussed options for cost sharing (and shared use of the laptops) between the Adult Education Program and the programs that share their school sites during the day.
Regarding software, the Adult Education Program has established a goal to increase the use of technology in the evening ESL program. They plan to survey all ESL teachers to determine the current level of technology use and then to collaborate with administrators to support the use of technology in the classrooms. They also plan to purchase Rosetta Stone and Oxford Picture Dictionary software for use in evening classes.
In the area of curriculum, they have established two goals: to apply differentiated instruction to improve learning outcomes, and to increase student retention by increasing student motivation and teacher classroom management skills. The plan calls for them to collect evidence of differentiated instruction using technology and to provide teachers with the opportunity to visit other classrooms within the program. In addition, they plan to provide mentoring to teachers who have high dropout rates and who are not practicing the skills presented in the monthly staff development meetings.
Adult Education currently needs to report to the state on the progress of their adult learners who are learning English, earning a high school diploma or GED or completing a vocational program. Future funding for the Community Based Tutoring Program (CBET) will require programs to report on the success of the adult students and the success of the children they are helping at home or in the community with literacy skills.
The Adult Education Program shared with the Educational Technology Planning Committee additional specific needs. Several of the elementary schools where adult classes are held in the evenings do not have an existing computer lab. Each of these schools (Rio Vista, Landau, and Bubbling Wells) are candidates for the cost sharing option discussed above as they work to expand their own student-to-computer ratios in keeping with goal 3f.1. (The Canyon Run Apartments site will also require a lab.) At sites with existing labs (Cathedral City Elementary, Desert Springs Middle School, Cielo Vista, and Della Lindley), all that is needed is a better system for coordinating Adult Education use of existing labs, including additional staffing, passwords, and accountability measures if necessary. There is also an intest in expanding existing distance learning opportunities to include the Adult Education Program’s GED/HSD program as well.
The Educational Technology Planning Committee has established five goals for supporting the existing Adult Education Technology Plan and meeting the additional needs above. These goals follow the same basic structure as sections 3 through 7 of this plan, focusing first and foremost on curriculular uses of technology, then on professional development, and only then on infrastructure, hardware, software, and technical support. Funding considerations and monitoring/evaluation concerns are also considered. The five goals for integrating District technology efforts with the Adult Education plan are presented below.
Adult Education Goals
8a.1. Curriculum Goal - The District will use technology in adult education with the explicit purpose of enhancing student learning of content and specific skills, thus supporting student success in both personal and professional goals.[66]
8a.2. Professional Development Goal - The District will promote and provide staff development opportunities related to technology in order to guide the development of skills that adult education teachers and staff need for effective use of technology to enhance learning.
8a.3. Infrastructure, Hardware, Software, and Technical Support Goal - The District will obtain, maintain and support the hardware, peripherals, and software necessary to facilitate implementation of the Adult Education Technology Plan.[67]
8a.4. Budget and Funding Goal - The District will provide ongoing fiscal support of the Adult Education Technology Plan, both through State allocated monies and other outside funding sources.
8a.5. Monitoring and Evaluation Goal - The District will continually and systematically monitor and evaluate both the implementation and the effectiveness of the Adult Education Technology Plan and the goals 8a.1 through 8a.4 above.
9. Research-Based Methods, Strategies, and Criteria
Text
9a. Description of how education technology strategies and proven methods for student learning, teaching, and technology management are based on relevant research and effective practices.
Text
9b. Description of thorough and thoughtful examination of externally or locally developed education technology models and strategies.
Text
9c. Description of development and utilization of innovative strategies for using technology to deliver rigorous academic courses and curricula, including distance-learning technologies (particularly in areas that would not otherwise have access to such courses or curricula due to geographical distances or insufficient resources).
Text
Appendix A: Teacher and Student Access to Technology
Text
Appendix B: Raw Data for Charts in Sections 3, 4, and 5
Text
Appendix D: 21st Century Skills
Text
Appendix E: Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence
Text
Appendix F: Sample Survey Questions
Text
Once a Year Or Less (1.0)
Once a Term (2.0)
Once a Month (3.0)
Once a Week (4.0)
Daily (5.0)
Appendix G: Technology Coach Qualifications and Outline of Commitment
Text
Appendix H: Cabling Specifications
Text
Appendix J: Acceptable Use Policies
Text
Appendix K: Technical Support Data
Text
Appendix L: California School Technology Survey Data
Text
Appendix M: Annual IT Audit Process
Text
Appendix N: Minimum Specifications
Text
Appendix O: Raw Data for Section 6
Text
Appendix P: Adult Education Tech Plan
Text
Appendix Q: Answers to Guiding Questions
Text
Appendix R: Additional Stakeholder Feedback
The following are consolidated notes taken during the staff forum on January 16, 2007 and the community forum on January 29, 2007. These notes were projected on a screen in front of the group and saved on the wiki for later use.
Stakeholder Feedback
This page is provided for committee members to record stakeholder feedback on the plan in progress. If feedback is collected in small groups, click on the individual pages before clicking "edit this page." If feedback is collected in a single discussion group, simply click on "edit this page" and use the links below as headings.
Curriculum
Concern about standardization of computer literacy across campuses.
Concern about redundancy between subject areas/ etc.... so there is no duplication
Put Scope and Sequence back on wiki home page and linked to appropropriate areas in Curriculum
What is 1 to 1? Definition may change in 3 years...
E-mail for students? Right now it is prohibited. It needs to be opened for discussion at this point....
Hard to monitor e-mail....Can we ask them to sign an agreement....There are models out there to enable access....Students can already can get through the firewall....Blogging....
Concern that we have teacher that don't want to use e-mail....Zangle....
Shared drive space is complicated to use for some teachers and students...
Adding students will add to our needed capacity. Will need to address infrastructure
Not all students can use e-mail. Some are savvy...
Mark thinks its rare to be as "locked" down as we are regarding student access
Concern about feedback time with Data Director as compared with Edusoft....Like to be able to use it to give feedback
Arbitrary decisions to change systems is questioned...ie Edusoft to Data Director....Requires additional training etc.
Don't need to identify product (i.e. Data Analysis Software vs Data Director) ...Need to check with CTAP
ParentConnection...is the District mandating that the teachers access Zangle Gradebook? Should it be mandated....Gov says need to provide access on Internet to parents....However, some teachers are reluctant to do so...It creates teacher tension....Part of change is expecting that reality and dealing with it....Need professional development....We're herre for students
Concern...we need a website where teachers can post agendas, class assignments For example, blogs, e-board type application, google web site...Could put in a common directory....Can add enhancement requests to Zangle....
3h1 the district utilizes technology to alow student information to be more accessible for parents...
Is our District Directory up to date? Shouldn't parents be able to access directory..There are rules/guidelines restricting access as a safeguard against social hacking
Some of the Cyberspace stuff is scary...But we need to let go of our fears...Allow access to teacher e-mail....etc...
Are we teaching students to use tools responsibly, safely... It is included at CCHS so we have a pocket of expertise we can tap into....
Also needs to begin at a younger age...Parent education too
Authentic learning programs are available such as "the stock market game"
Online tools such as Blackboard would help us to offer alternative methods to offer instruction
Why can't download new software, such as plug-ins, Also the basic suites (ie MS Office, vs WordPerfect, Appleworks) need to be universal so files and info can be shared
What can we do to enable students to bypass the firewall when they are enaged in academic research (for example..Hitler, Nazis, Medicinal marijuana) ...without having to call the help desk (Or subscribe to subscription services...Nettrekker???, etc??)
Career tech? Earlier discussion suggested not to right it into the plan. Depends on demand...Numbers are down.
Need for keyboarding skills at elementary and middle school. Uphill battle to get students to keyboard correctly. Need to find best keyboarding program...may need to standardize...
via email: I would like it to be mentioned the greatness of the InterWrite pads. Those things are without a doubt the most useful piece of tech I have seen in five years of teaching. I feel a priority should be placed on acquiring these for everyone. The engagement of students by letting them take turns using it is worth the price alone.
What is the selection process for the one-to-one? We are looking at it now and tossing around other plans...Largely baased on teacher (Mark)
CCHS is working to get 1-1 at his site.
With increased studet ratio - Is it Apple or PC? It will not always be Apple, but the district is moving in a dual platform.
Why with what you've invested already would you think about going to Apple instead of PC?
The idea is to allow both platforms and with the 1-1 it is being considered. (Mark)
it is about the software. For elementary the Apple works. Apple is a dual platform (Frank)
Zangle is not dual platform? Teacher and parent platform is dual platform because it is web-based.
Students will be on Macs and teachers will be on PCs? That will require extra professional development
Have you considered leasing? Yes
Can we be assured that software will be upgraded sooner rather than later on student computers. As it is now some students need to go into a lab that needs to be updated and they (students) need access to download different media (i.e. video, music, etc.)
Will librarians and others be trained and given extended hours to keep labs open (particularly secondary). Mark yes, makes a big difference...Increase access for students.
Funds need to be coordinated on a district scale.
I am impressed...(visitor from out of District), but I do not see business and vocational education addressed.
Career and vocational education will affect our AYP. Movement to bring business ed to grade 4.
With integrated platform you are preparing the kids for the future.
PS Public Library...What can we do, We need to be in the planning stages. We need to be able to coordinate databases and resources...such as Tech Advisory Committee. And an objective under Info Literacy
State of CA is trying to support a data base (universal) for all student throughout state. We need to support (PS High School Librarian)
Where will funds come from (we are looking for additional funds and have a new position
Who will inventory and keeping track of laptops in 1-1.
My problem has been tech support for MAC. (Mark- 4 of the 5 techs have already come back from training)
There is a huge discrepancy between the schools (have and have nots) based on site decisions....
This plan once passed, schools will be required to explain how sites are fitting it into the school site plan.
Zangle problems - It cannot do what systems we have used in the past (JWMS) Zangle needs to be able to have applications such as e-Board
E-mail accounts are not large enough to take images. (Mark - Storage is cheap)...Need larger e-mail storage
Tech coaches....Need to consider that come elementaries are very large and need more than one coach
Destiny catalog is not open to the public yet and we need that
What's the plan for the rest of the teachers to get laptops.
Coaches should get laptops also.
New superintendent says she wants every teacher to have a laptop and projection system (vision) (Frank)
Can we access at home our files? Can we access out shared drive files? if district sets up a proxy?
Tech coaches need to be available during the day, Like subs, etc. for observation - EETT model?
Rolling cart labs can be a nightmare. It can be a nightmare with some working and some not....Problem is when teachers get frustrated they will never use thm again and they'll be useless.
Helps to have teacher that will help on the spot. If that is not available we will have problems. Even get release time and be creative for people to get help.
Michael (NNC) My job as a tech coach I am busy all the time...and it galvanizes collaboration.
District has coaches that are funded in each core area.. and we need that for tech integration, too. It has to be all the time,..
As a teacher that relies on the tech coach, we use them in class, in data team meetings, I can't imagine the program working without proper integration support.
Must make sure that ANY coaches and specialists get the tech training as well.
unitedstreaming, ..Can we fund that District-wide?
Also, looking at MyAccess (Mark) to revise their writing...
It would be more economical if the District would look at buying a system, such as Ebsco.... Also can we work with the PS and Riverside Co Libraries to get these databases, when we are all looking at purchasing
I'd like to see more business cooperation, Simultations such as stock market games......with embedded standards...and reach out to community
Have you looked at doing a Senior project program? Can make a huge difference with kids (Mark)
A technology box on a rubric for hiring new teachers.
We need to adopt technical (technology skill) standards for students.
What's the ratio of the number of textbooks that are lost...Will we loose 1-1 laptops. Are we going to have the laptops configured to find when disappear? There are models we can look at (Mark) and insurance
Digital platform will take us through and will revolutionize the classroom in this environment.
Vision of future - Old school (our cums)...It is so much more meaningful to be able to see it online. Document imaging system....
Walkiing a fine line with confidentiality (Wendy) and its still required to have paper copies.
We can already access some information from our students from profiles and as the system get
Professional Development
Subject area coaches and splitting coach stipend as an option
Needs to be a full-time position or at least by out a couple of preps
May need to allocate number of coaches based on student/ teacher population
Does Scope and Sequence need to be revisited...Blogs and IDo allnternet safety could be added...It is basically sound (Mark)
Not all elementaries have labs....
Interesting to see the variance on the range of students computer skills (Angie, 8th grade teacher)
Equity is a concern
TIME is needed to analyze data and formulate plans off of it....
Need to differentiate instruction...leveled training...Need to have opportunities to share and collaboraate
Articulation across grade levels...with higher education
Need instruction on how to "make things" work...Need communication when systems change..
Can't see what my parents are seeing on ParentConnection. Note: It's in Student Profile so a prof dev issue to understand what is available
Teachers need to be made aware when changes are made to systems.
A model that can be used is to have certificated teachers meet "certifications, such as Level II" before funds are allocated from District...for incentive...Other incentive programs exist too (Mark)
Need to provide skills for classified staff
Bilingual parent training
Infrastructure
Need bigger e-mail box. Storage is cheap....No way to save e-mail messages. That would be a good enhancement on web mail.
District wide electronic calendars
Now takes at one school to get an event it takes 3 people and 4 forms in sequence to get an event scheduled
Bilingual websites, and ParentConnection, Report Cards
Funding
Monitoring
Appendix C: Criteria for EETT-Funded Education Technology Plans
Criteria for EETT-Funded Education Technology Plans
In order to be approved, a technology plan needs to have “Adequately Addressed” each of the following criteria:
• For corresponding EETT Requirements, see Appendix F.
• If the technology plan is revised, insert the Education Technology Plan Benchmark Review Form (Appendix I) at the beginning of the technology plan.
• Include this form (Appendix C) with “Page in District Plan” completed at the end of your technology plan.
|PLAN DURATION CRITERION |Page in |Example of Adequately Addressed |Example of Not Adequately Addressed |
| |District Plan | | |
|The plan should guide the district’s use |21 |The education technology plan describes|The plan is less than three years or more |
|of education technology for the next three| |the districts use of education |than five years in length. |
|to five years. | |technology for the next three to five | |
| | |years. | |
|STAKEHOLDERS CRITERION |Page in |Example of Adequately Addressed |Not Adequately Addressed |
|Corresponding EETT Requirement(s): 7 & 11 |District Plan | | |
|(Appendix F) | | | |
|Description of how a variety of |22 |The planning team consisted of |Little evidence is included that shows that |
|stakeholders from within the school | |representatives who will implement the |the district actively sought participation |
|district and the community-at-large | |plan. If a variety of stakeholders did |from a variety of stakeholders. |
|participated in the planning process. | |not assist with the development of the | |
| | |plan, a description of why they were | |
| | |not involved is included. | |
|CURRICULUM COMPONENT CRITERIA |Page in |Example of Adequately Addressed |Example of Not Adequately Addressed |
|Corresponding EETT Requirement(s): 1, 2, 3, |District Plan| | |
|8, 10, & 12 (Appendix F) | | | |
|Description of teachers’ and students’ |27 |The plan describes the technology access |The plan explains technology access in terms of|
|current access to technology tools both | |available in the classrooms, library/media |a student-to-computer ratio, but does not |
|during the school day and outside of school | |centers, or labs for all students and |explain where access is available, who has |
|hours. | |teachers. |access, and when various students and teachers |
| | | |can use the technology. |
|Description of the district’s current use of |32 |The plan describes the typical frequency and|The plan cites district policy regarding use of|
|hardware and software to support teaching and| |type of use (technology skills/information |technology, but provides no information about |
|learning. | |literacy/integrated into the curriculum). |its actual use. |
|Summary of the district’s curricular goals |47 |The plan references other district documents|The plan does not reference district curriculum|
|and academic content standards in various | |that guide the curriculum and/or establish |goals. |
|district and site comprehensive planning | |goals and standards. | |
|documents. | | | |
|List of clear goals and a specific |49 |The plan delineates clear, specific, and |The plan suggests how technology will be used, |
|implementation plan for using technology to | |realistic goals and target groups for using |but is not specific enough to know what action |
|improve teaching and learning by supporting | |technology to support the district’s |needs to be taken to accomplish the goals. |
|the district curricular goals and academic | |curriculum goals and academic content | |
|content standards. | |standards to improve learning. The | |
| | |implementation plan clearly supports | |
| | |accomplishing the goals. | |
|List of clear goals and a specific |53 |For the focus areas, the plan delineates |The plan suggests how technology will be used, |
|implementation plan detailing how and when | |clear, specific and realistic goals for |but is not specific enough to determine what |
|students will acquire technology and | |using technology to help students acquire |action needs to be taken to accomplish the |
|information literacy skills needed to succeed| |technology and information literacy skills. |goals. |
|in the classroom and the workplace. | |The implementation plan clearly supports | |
| | |accomplishing the goals. | |
|List of clear goals and a specific |56 |For the focus areas, the plan delineates |The plan suggests how technology will be used, |
|implementation plan for programs and methods | |clear, specific and realistic goals for |but is not specific enough to know what action |
|of utilizing technology that ensure | |using technology to support the progress of |needs to be taken to accomplish the goals. |
|appropriate access to all students. | |all students. The implementation plan | |
| | |clearly supports accomplishing the goals. | |
|List of clear goals and a specific |61 |The plan delineates clear, specific and |The plan suggests how technology will be used, |
|implementation plan to utilize technology to | |realistic goals for using technology to |but is not specific enough to know what action |
|make student record keeping and assessment | |support the district’s student |needs to be taken to accomplish the goals. |
|more efficient and supportive of teachers’ | |record-keeping and assessment efforts. The | |
|efforts to meet individual student academic | |implementation plan clearly supports | |
|needs. | |accomplishing the goals. | |
|List of clear goals and a specific |63 |The plan delineates clear, specific and |The plan suggests how technology will be used, |
|implementation plan to utilize technology to | |realistic goals for using technology to |but is not specific enough to know what action |
|make teachers and administrators more | |facilitate improved two-way communication |needs to be taken to accomplish the goals. |
|accessible to parents. | |between home and school. The implementation | |
| | |plan clearly supports accomplishing the | |
| | |goals. | |
|List of benchmarks and a timeline for |65 |The benchmarks and timeline are specific and|The benchmarks and timeline are either absent |
|implementing planned strategies and | |realistic. Teachers, administrators and |or so vague that it would be difficult to |
|activities. | |students implementing the plan can easily |determine what should occur at any particular |
| | |discern what steps will be taken, by whom, |time. |
| | |and when. | |
|Description of the process that will be used |66 |The monitoring process is described in |The monitoring process is either absent, or |
|to monitor whether the strategies and | |sufficient detail so that who is |lacks detail regarding who is responsible and |
|methodologies utilizing technology are being | |responsible, and what is expected is clear. |what is expected. |
|implemented according to the benchmarks and | | | |
|timeline. | | | |
|PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT CRITERIA |Page in |Example of Adequately Addressed |Example of Not Adequately Addressed |
|Corresponding EETT Requirement(s): 5 & 12 |District Plan | | |
|(Appendix F) | | | |
|Summary of the teachers’ and administrators’|69 |The plan provides a clear summary of the |Description of current level of staff expertise |
|current technology skills and needs for | |teachers’ and administrators’ current |is too general or relates only to a limited |
|professional development. | |technology skills and needs for |segment of the district’s teachers and |
| | |professional development. The findings |administrators in the focus areas or does not |
| | |are summarized in the plan by discrete |relate to the focus areas, i.e., only the fourth |
| | |skills to facilitate providing |grade teachers when grades four to eight are the |
| | |professional development that meets the |focus grade levels. |
| | |identified needs and plan goals. | |
|List of clear goals and a specific |76 |The plan delineates clear, specific and |The plan speaks only generally of professional |
|implementation plan for providing | |realistic goals for providing teachers |development and is not specific enough to ensure |
|professional development opportunities based| |and administrators with sustained, |that teachers and administrators will have the |
|on the needs assessment and the Curriculum | |ongoing professional development |necessary training to implement the Curriculum |
|Component goals, benchmarks, and timeline. | |necessary to implement the Curriculum |Component. |
| | |Component of the plan. The implementation| |
| | |plan clearly supports accomplishing the | |
| | |goals. | |
|List of benchmarks and a timeline for |88 |The benchmarks and timeline are specific |The benchmarks and timeline are either absent or |
|implementing planned strategies and | |and realistic. Teachers and |so vague that it would be difficult to determine |
|activities. | |administrators implementing the plan can |what steps will be taken, by whom, and when. |
| | |easily discern what steps will be taken, | |
| | |by whom, and when. | |
|Description of the process that will be used|89 |The monitoring process is described in |The monitoring process is either absent, or lacks|
|to monitor whether the professional | |sufficient detail so that who is |detail regarding who is responsible and what is |
|development goals are being met and whether | |responsible and what is expected is |expected. |
|the planned professional development | |clear. | |
|activities are being implemented in | | | |
|accordance with the benchmarks and timeline.| | | |
|INFRASTRUCTURE, HARDWARE, TECHNICAL SUPPORT, |Page in |Example of Adequately Addressed |Example of Not Adequately Addressed |
|AND SOFTWARE COMPONENT CRITERIA |District Plan| | |
|Describe the technology hardware, electronic |91 |The plan clearly summarizes the technology|The plan includes a description or list of |
|learning resources, networking and | |hardware, electronic learning resources, |hardware, infrastructure and other technology|
|telecommunications infrastructure, physical | |networking and telecommunications |necessary to implement the plan, but there |
|plant modifications, and technical support | |infrastructure, physical plant |doesn’t seem to be any real relationship |
|needed by the district’s teachers, students, | |modifications, and technical support |between the activities in the Curriculum and |
|and administrators to support the activities | |proposed to support the implementation of |Professional Development Components and the |
|in the Curriculum and Professional | |the district’s Curriculum and Professional|listed equipment. Future technical support |
|Development Components of the plan. | |Development Components. The plan also |needs have not been addressed or do not |
| | |includes the list of items to be acquired,|relate to the needs of the Curriculum and |
| | |which may be included as an appendix. |Professional Development Components. |
|Describe the existing hardware, Internet |101 |The plan clearly summarizes the existing |The inventory of equipment is so general that|
|access, electronic learning resources, and | |technology hardware, electronic learning |it is difficult to determine what must be |
|technical support already in the district | |resources, networking and |acquired to implement the Curriculum and |
|that could be used to support the Curriculum | |telecommunication infrastructure, and |Professional Development Components. The |
|and Professional Development Components of | |technical support to support the |summary of current technical support is |
|the plan. | |implementation of the Curriculum and |missing or lacks sufficient detail. |
| | |Professional Development Components. The | |
| | |current level of technical support is | |
| | |clearly explained. | |
|List of clear benchmarks and a timeline for |106 |The benchmarks and timeline are specific |The benchmarks and timeline are either absent|
|obtaining the hardware, infrastructure, | |and realistic. Teachers and |or so vague that it would be difficult to |
|learning resources and technical support | |administrators implementing the plan can |determine what needs to be acquired or |
|required to support the other plan | |easily discern what needs to be acquired |repurposed, by whom, and when. |
|components. | |or repurposed, by whom, and when. | |
|Description of the process that will be used |115 |The monitoring process is described in |The monitoring process is either absent, or |
|to monitor whether the goals and benchmarks | |sufficient detail so that who is |lacks detail regarding who is responsible and|
|are being reached within the specified time | |responsible and what is expected is clear.|what is expected. |
|frame. | | | |
|FUNDING AND BUDGET COMPONENT CRITERIA |Page in |Example of Adequately Addressed |q |
|Corresponding EETT Requirement(s): 7 & 13,|District Plan | | |
|(Appendix F) | | | |
|List of established and potential funding |117 |The plan clearly describes resources* |Resources to implement the plan are not |
|sources and cost savings, present and | |that are available or could be obtained |identified or are so general as to be useless. |
|future. | |to implement the plan. The process for | |
| | |identifying future funding sources is | |
| | |described. | |
|Estimate implementation costs for the term|120 |Cost estimates are reasonable and address|Cost estimates are unrealistic, lacking, or are|
|of the plan (three to five years). | |the total cost of ownership. |not sufficiently detailed to determine if the |
| | | |total cost of ownership is addressed. |
|Description of the level of ongoing |133 |The plan describes the level of technical|The description of the ongoing level of |
|technical support the district will | |support that will be provided for |technical support is either vague or not |
|provide. | |implementation given current resources |included, is so inadequate that successful |
| | |and describes goals for additional |implementation of the plan is unlikely, or is |
| | |technical support should new resources |so unrealistic as to raise questions of the |
| | |become available. The level of technical |viability of sustaining that level of support. |
| | |support is based on some logical unit of | |
| | |measure. | |
|Description of the district’s replacement |134 |Plan recognizes that equipment will need |Replacement policy is either missing or vague. |
|policy for obsolete equipment. | |to be replaced and outlines a realistic |It is not clear that the replacement policy |
| | |replacement plan that will support the |could be implemented. |
| | |Curriculum and Professional Development | |
| | |Components. | |
|Description of the feedback loop used to |135 |The monitoring process is described in |The monitoring process is either absent, or |
|monitor progress and update funding and | |sufficient detail so that who is |lacks detail regarding who is responsible and |
|budget decisions. | |responsible, and what is expected is |what is expected. |
| | |clear. | |
|* In this document, the term “resources” means funding, in-kind services, donations, or other items of value. |
|MONITORING AND EVALUATION COMPONENT |Page in |Example of Adequately Addressed |Example of Not Adequately Addressed |
|CRITERIA |District Plan | | |
|Corresponding EETT Requirement(s): 11 | | | |
|(Appendix F) | | | |
|Description of how technology’s impact on|137 |The plan describes the process for |No provision for an evaluation is included in the plan.|
|student learning and attainment of the | |evaluation utilizing the goals and |How success is determined is not defined. The |
|district’s curricular goals, as well as | |benchmarks of each component as the |evaluation is defined, but the process to conduct the |
|classroom and school management, will be | |indicators of success. |evaluation is missing. |
|evaluated. | | | |
|Schedule for evaluating the effect of |139 |Evaluation timeline is specific and |The evaluation timeline is not included or indicates an|
|plan implementation. | |realistic. |expectation of unrealistic results that does not |
| | | |support the continued implementation of the plan. |
|Description of how the information |140 |The plan describes a process to |The plan does not provide a process for using the |
|obtained through the monitoring and | |report the monitoring and evaluation|monitoring and evaluation results to improve the plan |
|evaluation will be used. | |results to persons responsible for |and/or disseminate the findings. |
| | |implementing and modifying the plan,| |
| | |as well as to the plan stakeholders.| |
|EFFECTIVE COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIES WITH |Page in |Example of Adequately Addressed |Example of Not Adequately Addressed |
|ADULT LITERACY PROVIDERS TO MAXIMIZE THE |District Plan | | |
|USE OF TECHNOLOGY CRITERION | | | |
|Corresponding EETT Requirement(s): 11 | | | |
|(Appendix F) | | | |
|If the district has identified adult |141 |The plan explains how the program |There is no evidence that the plan has been, or will |
|literacy providers, there is a description| |will be developed in collaboration |be developed in collaboration with adult literacy |
|of how the program will be developed in | |with adult literacy providers. |service providers, to maximize the use of technology.|
|collaboration with those providers. | |Planning included or will include | |
| | |consideration of collaborative | |
| | |strategies and other funding | |
| | |resources to maximize the use of | |
| | |technology. If no adult literacy | |
| | |providers are indicated, the plan | |
| | |describes the process used to | |
| | |identify adult literacy providers. | |
|EFFECTIVE, RESEARCHED-BASED METHODS, |Page in District|Example of Adequately Addressed |Not Adequately Addressed |
|STRATEGIES, AND CRITERIA |Plan | | |
|Corresponding EETT Requirement(s): 4 & 9 | | | |
|(Appendix F) | | | |
|Description of how education technology | |The plan describes the relevant research|The description of the research behind the plan’s |
|strategies and proven methods for student | |behind the plan’s design for strategies |design for strategies and/or methods selected is |
|learning, teaching, and technology | |and/or methods selected. |unclear or missing. |
|management are based on relevant research | | | |
|and effective practices. | | | |
|Description of thorough and thoughtful | |The plan describes references to |No research is cited. |
|examination of externally or locally | |research literature that supports why or| |
|developed education technology models and | |how the model improves student | |
|strategies. | |achievement. | |
|Description of development and utilization| |The plan describes the process for |There is no plan to utilize technology to extend |
|of innovative strategies for using | |development and utilization of |or supplement the district’s curriculum offerings |
|technology to deliver rigorous academic | |strategies to use technology to deliver | |
|courses and curricula, including | |specialized or rigorous academic courses| |
|distance-learning technologies | |and curricula, including distance | |
|(particularly in areas that would not | |learning. | |
|otherwise have access to such courses or | | | |
|curricula due to geographical distances or| | | |
|insufficient resources). | | | |
-----------------------
[1] Ed Data:
Dataquest:
[2] The raw data used to generate the figures in this section are included in Appendix B.
[3] Based on Title III AMAO 1:
[4] Note that the use of two-way technologies (such as email, instant messaging, video chat, blogs, podcasts, and shared network storage), also mentioned in 3h below, may be used to increase participation in independent study and home/hospital programs.
[5] See also goal 4b1 in the professional development section.
[6] See also goal 4b8 in the professional development section.
[7] These 21st Century Skills include Digital Age Literacy, Inventive Thinking, Effective Communication, and High Productivity. See appendix D for more information.
[8] See also goal 4b.2 in the professional development section.
[9] See Appendix E for the District Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence.
[10] Note that the scope and sequence covers grades K-8. If students cannot demonstrate mastery of the required skills on entering the 9th grade (by passing the computer literacy exam), then they will be enrolled in a computer literacy class as a means of remediation. These benchmarks allow this plan to be phased in over three years. (Note also that the committee hopes the computer literacy classes might also be offered in the middle schools despite the logistical barriers.)
[11] See also goal 4b.3. in the professional development section.
[12] See Appendix D for an overview of enGauge: 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners.
[13] See also goal 4b.4 in the professional development section.
[14] Sample questions from the District Student Technology Use Survey and the District Teacher Technology Use Survey appear in Appendix F.
[15] The number in parenthesis is the average of all responses when: Once a Year Or Less = 1.0, Once a Term = 2.0, Once a Month = 3.0, Once a Week = 4.0, and Daily = 5.0. The benchmark for 2009-2010 is 4.5 because it is understood that the average will never be equal to the highest possible score. The planning committee recognizes these as challenging goals. See Appendix F for sample survey questions. The benchmark for 2009-2010 is 4.5 because it is understood that the average will never be equal to the highest possible score.
[16] See Appendix N for minimum specifications for donated equipment.
[17] See also goal 5c.2 in the Infrastructure section for more on appropriate access.
[18] See Apple’s website about One-to-One initiatives for more information regarding this model of student access to technology:
[19] See also goal 4b.5 for more on professional development related to the one-to-one pilot programs, and goal 5c.2 for more on providing one-to-one computer access.
[20] See Appendix F for sample survey questions.
[21] See also goal 4b.6 in the professional development section.
[22] Note that alternative education teachers in many cases do not take attendance nor post grades directly to zangle. This affects a very small percentage of PSUSD students and parents.
[23] These surveys will include questions about email, web-based announcements, blog comments, podcasts, and more. Sample questions for the Technology Use Surveys appear in Appendix F.
[24] Note that these technologies can also be a valuable addition to the independent study alternative education program and the home/hospital program.
[25] The Follet Destiny library online catalog can also be made available to parents and students from home. The TIS department hopes to implement this feature during the life of this plan.
[26] See also goal 4b.7 in the professional development section.
[27] Technology Coach Qualifications and an Outline of Commitment appear in Appendix G. Also, the role of tech coaches is discussed further in the professional development, infrastructure, funding, and monitoring sections of the plan.
[28] Results given in number of respondents and percentage of respondents.
[29] Instructional staff are teachers, administrators, para-professionals, and other staff that instruct students or directly support the instruction of students.
[30] In section 6, budget is identified to allow for 100% of all teachers each year.
[31] This training will also incorporate as many of the goals above as possible. Separate classes will be offered for level 1, level 2, and for level 3 (a trainer-of-trainers model for tech coaches).
[32] This training will be modeled on successful BTSA training for Standards 9 and 16 currently conducted by the District.
[33] See section 3j for additional detail about the advisory committee and about technology coaches.
[34] The need to budget for replacement bulbs for LCD projectors and for the ongoing costs of printer cartridges must also be considered.
[35] The data used to generate these charts is available in Appendix B.
[36] The data used to generate these charts is available in Appendix B.
[37] District cabling specifications are provided in Appendix H.
[38] The server room cooling system has already been budgeted and paid for – it only needs to be installed.
[39] The data used to generate these charts is available in Appendix K.
[40] See Appendix J for sample Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs).
[41] The data used to generate these numbers is available in Appendix L.
[42] The annual IT audit process appears as Appendix M, including the software auditing process.
[43] Note: This allows for approximately 1 hour of computer use per day per student, or 1 day of computer use per week per student.
[44] See Appendix N for minimum specifications.
[45] Note: The annual IT audit process in Appendix M includes spreadsheets, summaries and sample images of all IDF and MDF closets. Also, all new switches will be layer three switches, standardized on Cisco, including wireless access points.
[46] Discrepancies sometimes occur when teachers want to significantly rearrange a classroom layout.
[47] See the estimated costs of providing this level of technical support in section 6b.
[48] Samples of existing Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) appear in Appendix J.
[49] See section 3j for additional detail about the advisory committee and about technology coaches.
[50] See
[51] See
[52] See
[53] See
[54] See
[55] See
[56] See
[57] See
[58] See
[59] See
[60] These estimates do not include an additional database administrator, which may also be necessary by 2010 given additional use of services such as Zangle.
[61] The data used to generate these totals and the chart in Figure 35 is available in Appendix K.
[62] Note that these totals do not include a $50k three-year contract for NAI McAfee including Virex, which has already been paid for and does not expire until 2010.
[63] The raw data used to compute the costs and generate the figures in this section is available in Appendix O.
[64] See Appendix F for sample survey questions.
[65] The Current Adult Education Technology Plan (Under Review) appears in Appendix P.
[66] The Educational Technology Planning Committee also acknowledges the need to help adults train for the workforce by helping them master the skills in the District Student Technology Skills Scope and Sequence (see Appendix E). Adult Education currently offers instruction in the Microsoft Office Suite, but other programs, including certifications such as Cisco A+ certification, might be added as well. It is expected that this might also benefit the k12 students in the District, as Parents will learn technology skills and thus understand and more actively participate in their children’s technology-rich schoolwork.
[67] To support the Adult Education program's large English Learner population, and to support the need of many adult learners to establish basic technical skills, all Adult Education computers (and computers shared with District k12 students) will be loaded with curricular software such as Rosetta Stone, Oxford Picture Dictionary, Mavis Beacon, and Microsoft word. In addition, all computers will have access to the Internet.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- title page of lab report
- apa 6 title page format
- apa title page template
- turabian title page template
- apa title page generator
- apa title page template word
- title page example apa format
- army title page format
- research title page example
- apa 7th edition title page format
- apa 7 title page example
- apa 7th edition title page sample