State Support of the Transition to Digital Curriculum€¦ · transition to digital curriculum still provides a solid return on investment. Figure 1.2 details the exact costs per

In the following report, Hanover Research examines state support of the transition to

digital curriculum. Specifically, Hanover discusses the benefits and student outcomes of

digital curriculum and recommendations for its implementation, as well as relevant

national and state policies and legislation. The final section of the report includes profiles

of three states that are leaders in the transition to digital curriculum.

State Support of the Transition to Digital Curriculum

September 2014

Hanover Research | September 2014

© 2014 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary and Key Findings ................................................................................ 3

KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 3

Section I: Benefits, Outcomes, and State Support of the Shift to Digital Curriculum ........... 5

BENEFITS AND STUDENT OUTCOMES ............................................................................................... 5

SUPPORT OF THE TRANSITION TO DIGITAL CURRICULUM, TEXTBOOKS, AND OER ...................................... 8

National Policy and Legislation .......................................................................................... 8

State Support of Transition to Digital Curriculum ............................................................. 8

Timing .............................................................................................................................. 12

Vision and Roadmap ........................................................................................................ 12

Training and Professional Development.......................................................................... 12

Usage of Federal Funds .................................................................................................... 13

Section II: State Profiles ................................................................................................... 15

TEXAS ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Instructional Materials Allotment ................................................................................... 15

Technology Lending Program Grant ................................................................................ 17

Virtual School Network .................................................................................................... 18

Project Share .................................................................................................................... 19

UTAH ..................................................................................................................................... 20

OER Pilot Programs and Database ................................................................................... 20

Statewide Online Education Program.............................................................................. 21

Early Intervention Program ............................................................................................. 22

VIRGINIA ................................................................................................................................. 23

Professional Development Initiatives .............................................................................. 23



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS In recent years, digital curriculum, textbooks, and open educational resources (OER) have gained traction as valuable pedagogical tools in K‐12 education, yielding positive student outcomes, personalized learning, and a significant return on investment. The following report examines state support of districts’ transition to digital curriculum by discussing benefits and student outcomes associated with digital instructional materials, related national and state policy and legislation, and recommendations for states in facilitating this transition, including training and professional development initiatives and use of federal funds. The report concludes with detailed profiles of three states’ transition to digital curriculum.

KEY FINDINGS

Digital curriculum, textbooks, and OER provide a strong return on investment, in terms of cost as well as student outcomes. A report released by the Federal Communications Commission compares the costs of traditional learning versus new, technology‐enhanced learning, highlighting a future savings of $60 per student per year associated with digital textbooks and curriculum. The International Association for K‐12 Online Learning also advocates for digital curriculum, maintaining that the usage of OER and digital materials permits the delivery of customized content to students, thus “leading the transformation toward student‐centered education systems.”

States looking to transition to a digital curriculum should carefully consider the timing of implementation, create a clear vision and roadmap, offer training and professional development opportunities, and take advantage of federal funding. States should align the shift from print to digital instructional materials with major textbook adoption cycles. State and district leaders should establish a clear vision for the transition to digital curriculum and ensure clear communication of that vision to stakeholders. It is also recommended that teachers be given at least one school year of preparation prior to the transition, in addition to providing them with ongoing professional development. Finally, states should consider funding through the Elementary and Secondary Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for their transition to digital curriculum.

The states profiled in this report have provided financial, legislative and infrastructure support to facilitate the transition to digital curriculum, but ultimately give districts autonomy when adopting digital curriculum. States have found success by allowing increased flexibility in funding and in content choice. For example, the Texas legislature modified its legal code by replacing the word “textbook” with “instructional materials,” thus permitting districts to use state funding for digital materials and services in addition to traditional print textbooks.



Profiled states offer a variety of technology programming and initiatives that act to increase access to high quality resources, cut costs, and personalize learning for students. For example, Utah allows students to enroll in publicly funded online courses from any approved provider in the state through its Statewide Online Education Program. Texas, on the other hand, instituted its Technology Lending Program Grant to ensure all students have equal access to personal technology devices and digital curriculum.



SECTION I: BENEFITS, OUTCOMES, AND STATE

SUPPORT OF THE SHIFT TO DIGITAL

CURRICULUM

BENEFITS AND STUDENT OUTCOMES

The Center for Digital Education, an educational technology research organization, has published a number of reports on the topic of schools’ transition to digital content. In one of its 2012 reports, the organization outlines some of the main benefits of the so‐called “textbook reformation,” as shown in Figure 1.1 below.1

Figure 1.1: Benefits of Digital Textbooks and Curriculum

Source: Center for Digital Education2

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) provides an in‐depth view of the return on investment of transitioning to a digital curriculum. In the FCC’s evaluation of a Project RED

1 “Q2 Special Report: The Textbook Reformation & Digital Content.” Center for Digital Education, June 2012, pp. 6‐7.

http://www.centerdigitaled.com/paper/259400761.html 2 Ibid.

•Digital textbooks, which cost roughly only $10 to purchase and $4 to rent, can be more economical than standard textbooks.

•Digital content, such as open source or leased resources, can also save districts money.

Cost

•Digital textbooks are lightweight. E‐readers and tablets weigh only a half‐pound to two pounds, in contrast with textbooks, which weight two to seven pounds each.

•Since students have to carry many books, the average backpack weight is 30 pounds.

Weight

•While textbooks can become outdated quickly, digital textbooks can remain more up to date.

•Digital materials can also be keyword‐searched, and can include "embedded, interactive tests, games and quizzes, and multi‐media content" that help to engage students.

Relevancy

•Digital textbooks and content can be personalized to meet students' academic strengths and weaknesses. Students with special needs ‐ learning disabled students, English Language Learners, struggling students, and gifted students ‐ benefit from "adaptive, technology‐based solutions."

•Standard textbook content, on the other hand, is mass‐produced and generic.

Personalization



study, the Commission released “new side‐by‐side cost models of traditional learning versus ‘new’ learning,” highlighting a current savings of $250 per student each year, and a future savings of $60 per student each year, when schools move to digital textbooks.3 There are several potential reasons why the cost per student would increase between now and three years from now, as the FCC estimated. Research shows that “the pricing of devices varies over time; sometimes the cost stays constant even as new features and functions are added; other times it goes down even with new features.” However, when a new category of devices is created, such as the tablet, costs may go up.4 However, even with the need to stay current with technology trends, the FCC’s conservative estimates suggest that the transition to digital curriculum still provides a solid return on investment.

Figure 1.2 details the exact costs per student per year for schools with traditional learning environments, new learning environments today, and new learning environments in three years. The total costs of traditional learning environments consider standard textbooks, paper, technology, and connectivity. The total costs of new learning environments take into account digital learning content, devices, technology, and connectivity, and are based on an overall conservative evaluation. While a total savings of $60 per student per year in the near future may seem insignificant, with an estimated 49 million elementary and secondary school students in the United States, total savings would equate to nearly $3 billion. 5

Figure 1.2: Traditional Learning vs. “New” Learning Environments: Cost Per Student Per Year

Source: LEAD Commission6

3 “Leaders Discuss Transition to Digital Textbooks.” The Leading Education by Advancing Digital (LEAD) Commission.

http://www.leadcommission.org/news/leaders‐discuss‐transition‐digital‐textbooks 4 “Out of Print: Reimagining the K‐12 Textbook in a Digital Age.” State Educational Technology Directors Association

(SETDA), 2012, p. 29. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536747.pdf 5 “FCC: Digital Textbooks Could Save US $60 per Student Annually, $2.94 Billion Overall.” The Verge.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/30/2913702/digital‐textbooks‐fcc‐us‐savings 6 “Leaders Discuss Transition to Digital Textbooks.” Op. cit.

$3,871

$3,621

$3,811

$3,400 $3,500 $3,600 $3,700 $3,800 $3,900

Traditional Learning Environment

New Learning Environment (Today)

New Learning Environment (in 3 Years)



The International Association for K‐12 Online Learning (iNACOL) further emphasizes the benefits of digital textbooks and curriculum, with a specific focus on OER. iNACOL explains that “by sharing publicly funded learning materials as OER, we can move away from ‘re‐creating the wheel’ in all 50 states and territories.”7 Instead, the usage of OER “permits delivery of customized content to students much faster and more cost effectively than the current system allows,” and will “lead the transformation toward student‐centered education systems.” iNACOL details six main benefits of OER for states and education stakeholders:8

Collaboration and partnerships: creating powerful partnering opportunities at the classroom level by enabling educators to develop, share, and access quality OER to meet their students’ unique requirements and needs;

Knowledge sharing: widening access to high‐quality resources, thus encouraging college and career readiness;

Cost savings and efficiency: cutting costs by sharing and reusing content, and eliminating delays associated with securing permission to use existing digital materials by allowing educators to freely use such resources, and reducing the cost and effort of making copies and distributing learning resources (professional development and training to develop content is far less than the recurring costs for printed materials);

Quality improvements: enabling continuous improvement of online and other digital learning resources by professional peers that are curated and vetted for alignment to state academic standards;

Support for independent learning: helping students to a) access additional learning resources, b) enhance supplemental materials in support of academic plans, c) become better prepared, d) engage in independent learning, and e) pursue learning aligned with personal interests; and

Communications and community engagement: engaging with students, parents, and communities, and highlighting the opportunities available to students who learn through open content.

In terms of student outcomes, another FCC report highlights some of the positive student benefits that can result from a school’s transition to digital curriculum and leveraging of technology. Specifically, the report explains that leveraging technology “can improve the opportunity for educational access, improve student engagement and achievement, and improve learning productivity.”9 First, according to the U.S. Department of Education and

7 “OER State Policy in K‐12 Education: Benefits, Strategies, and Recommendations for Open Access, Open Sharing.”

International Association for K‐12 Online Learning, p. 2. http://www.inacol.org/cms/wp‐content/uploads/2013/06/inacol_OER_Policy_Guide_v5_web.pdf

8 Bullet points quoted from: “OER State Policy in K‐12 Education: Benefits, Strategies, and Recommendation for Open Access, Open Sharing,” Op. cit., p. 4.

9 “FCC Chairman Genachowski Joins Secretary of Education Duncan to Unveil New ‘Digital Textbook Playbook,’ a Roadmap for Educators to Accelerate the Transition to Digital Textbooks.” Federal Communications Commission, p. 2. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC‐312244A1.pdf



recent studies by the National Training and Simulation Association, “technology‐based instruction can reduce the time students take to reach a learning objective by 30 to 80 percent.” Secondly, “continuous access to a computing device for every student leads to increased academic achievement and financial benefits,” according to Project RED, and benefits are greatest when technology is properly implemented. Finally, another Project RED study finds that online collaboration “contributes to improved graduation rates and other academic improvements.”10

SUPPORT OF THE TRANSITION TO DIGITAL CURRICULUM, TEXTBOOKS, AND OER

NATIONAL POLICY AND LEGISLATION

According to the Center for Digital Education, “the adoption of digital content in public education depends to a large degree on government policy and legislation, at both federal and state levels.”11 Federal laws and policies have included Title I (providing funding for textbooks and for technology), the National Technology Plan and National Broadband Act of 2010 (focusing on nationwide broadband in homes and schools), and the E‐Rate program (subsidizing technology purchases based on schools’ percentages of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch programs).12 However, the remainder of this report focuses on state support of schools’ and districts’ transition to digital curriculum.

STATE SUPPORT OF TRANSITION TO DIGITAL CURRICULUM

The Center for Digital Education report explains that in addition to national policies and legislation, changes are also taking place at the state level. In terms of textbook funding, for example, many states are in the process of rewriting textbook funding laws. Specifically, approximately one third of states “are freeing up the definition of a textbook for budgetary purposes, allowing funds to flow from different budget areas.”13 This might mean, for example, that the technology fund is used to cover the cost of digital textbooks. Additionally, the Digital Textbook Playbook, put together by the Digital Textbook Collaborative (convened by the FCC and the U.S. Department of Education), is “a joint effort of industry stakeholders [and] school nonprofit leaders to encourage collaboration across the ecosystem, accelerate the development of digital textbooks, and improve the quality and penetration of digital learning in K‐12 public education.”14 The Playbook provides states, schools, and educators with information about the best ways to transition to an effective digital learning experience. Specifically, the Playbook details six main “ingredients” of successful district and state transitions to digital curriculum: leadership, planning,

10 Ibid. 11 “Q2 Special Report: The Textbook Reformation & Digital Content,” Op. cit., p. 22. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 “Digital Textbook Playbook.” The Digital Textbook Collaborative. February, 2012, p. 3.

http://transition.fcc.gov/files/Digital_Textbook_Playbook.pdf



engagement, creativity and flexibility, persistence and prioritization, and supplant, not supplement. 15 Details about these six main features are listed in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3: Ingredients of a Successful Transition to Digital Curriculum

Source: The Digital Textbook Collaborative16

Another organization to consider is Digital Learning Now, a national initiative of the Foundation for Excellence in Education (ExcelinEd), which publishes an annual Digital

15 “Digital Textbook Playbook,” Op. cit., pp. 13‐14. 16 Taken verbatim from: Ibid.

Leadership

•The most important component of successful digital learning conversions has been strong, collaborative leadership. Some initially successful conversions have failed after their leaders moved on.

•While individual leadership is important, collaborative leadership provides the opportunity to build a collective vision and commitment that enhances continuity.

Planning

•Successful implementation of digital learning requires thorough planning. This includes a thoughtful rollout plan created through a collective process with all stakeholders.

•At a minimum, the plan should address content, infrastructure, maintenance, learning strategies, training requirements, and technical support. It should also be flexible, allowing for course corrections to overcome unanticipated challenges or to seize unanticipated opportunities.

Engagement

•Teachers are critical to the success of any significant change in education. They should be involved in the planning and rollout of digital learning, and help identify the tools and content, training, and support they will need to fully support their teaching and their students' learning.

Creativity and Flexibility

•Teachers, students, and parents will identify flaws in the plan and can help identify solutions. Leaders and implementers need to listen to stakeholders and work cohesively toward a mutually satisfactory outcome.

Persistence and Prioritization

•Educators and technologists have become infamous for rolling out a new idea or product before the last one has been fully implemented. Successful implementations require focused planning and attention to key implementation factors previously noted.

•Success takes time and commitment to strategic action plans, review, and adjustment. It often takes several cycles after implementation to determine if a new initiative is working.

Supplant, not Supplement

•Too often technology and digital learning is added on top of the existing practices, challenging already busy curriculums and overwhelming busy teachers. Instead, successful digital learning implementations require modifications to the curriculum to replace ineffective practices with those that best leverage the technology.



Learning Report Card monitoring state policies on digital learning legislation.17 The newest 2013 Report Card supports the notion that “states are rising to the challenge of supporting next generation models of learning” – in 2013, states introduced more than 450 digital learning bills and signed 132 into law. The Report Card also lists the 10 main elements of high‐quality digital learning on which states are measured. In this way, the list below shows the conditions through which state climates can be most supportive of the transition to digital curriculum:18

Student Eligibility: All students are digital learners. States can support the transition to digital curriculum, for example, by instituting a graduation requirement of taking a college prep online course which “ensures students are better prepared to succeed in life after graduation in the digital age.”19 All students should be able to experience digital learning, and there should not be established criteria for eligibility.

Student Access: All students have access to high‐quality digital content and online courses. States can ensure all students experience digital learning environments (including online and blended learning) by not setting restrictions on class size, teacher‐student ratio, or geographic boundaries for online courses offered through school districts. For example, states should allow students to enroll in an “unlimited number of part‐time individual online courses.”20

Personalized Learning: All students can customize their education using digital content through an approved provider. States should allow students to enroll with more than one online course provider at the same time, thus facilitating self‐paced programs and personalized learning. Students should also be able to enroll in such courses “on a rolling or frequently scheduled basis throughout the year,” thus not restricting online courses to solely students who sign up at the beginning of the year.21

Advancement: Students progress based on demonstrated competency. States should mandate that students demonstrate proficiency on “standards‐based competencies to advance/earn credit for a grade/course and to advance to the succeeding grade/course.”22 Digital curriculum allows students to study and advance at their own paces.

Quality Content: Digital content, instructional materials, and online and blended learning courses are high quality. States can support the transition to digital curriculum by aligning digital content and instruction with state standards and/or Common Core State Standards. By not placing any additional burdens on “approval and procurement processes for digital content beyond those for print content,” it

17 “Digital Learning Report Card 2013.” Digital Learning Now.

http://digitallearningnow.com/site/uploads/2014/02/DLN_ReportCard_FINAL_2.pdf 18 Ibid., p. 7. 19 Ibid., p. 26. 20 Ibid., p. 28. 21 Ibid., p. 30. 22 Ibid., p. 32.



will be much easier for students to gain access to quality digital content.23 Finally, states should allow material funding to be used for “purchasing digital content, instructional materials, devices, and systems.”

Quality Instruction: Digital instruction is high quality. States should accept “alternative routes” for teacher certification, and should allow “reciprocity among other states for certification of teachers,” thus ensuring that high quality digital educators can teach students in‐state and out‐of‐state.24 In addition, states should use student performance data to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of these teachers. Finally, states should ensure that professional development is available to teachers teaching in “online or blended learning courses.”

Quality Choices: All students have access to multiple high quality providers. “To maximize the potential of digital learning, states must provide a rich offering of providers that can cater to the diverse and distinctly unique needs of different students.”25 States should authorize a variety of digital providers: full‐time online schools, part‐time individual online course providers, and virtual charter schools. States should maintain organized, public websites that provide information about all digital learning opportunities.

Assessment and Accountability: Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of content and instruction. State‐mandated assessments “in course subjects, including annual assessments, end‐of‐course exams, and high school exit exams,” are administered digitally.26 Student performance data should be used to evaluate the quality of digital learning, and poorly performing online providers and courses should lose their ability to serve students statewide.

Funding: Funding creates incentives for performance, options, and innovation. In order to further support the transition to digital learning, states should develop a “public per‐pupil school funding formula.”27 Funding should follow the student to the “school or course of their choice,” and public funds should be available for online learning for all district public school students, charter public school students, private school students, and home education students. Finally, funding should be provided on a “fractional, per course basis to pay providers for part‐time individual online courses.”

Delivery: Infrastructure supports digital learning. States can “adopt a variety of approaches to accelerate the shift to digital content, online assessment, and high‐access environments including learning environments that take advantage of student‐owned devices.”28 States can use their purchasing power to “negotiate lower‐cost licenses and contracts for everything from digital content to access devices and mobile Internet services.”

23 Ibid., p. 34. 24 Ibid., p. 36. 25 Ibid., p. 38. 26 Ibid., p. 41. 27 Ibid., p. 42. 28 Ibid., p. 44.



TIMING

The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), the “principal association serving, supporting, and representing US state and territorial educational technology leadership,” offers a set of recommendations for states looking to transition to digital curriculum, including useful guidelines about timing.29 According to SETDA, states and districts should “commit to beginning the shift from print to digital instructional materials with the next major textbook adoption cycle, completing the transition by no later than the 2017‐18 school year.”30 The organization explains that if the transition is not completed immediately, “major funding will go toward providing students and teachers with static, inflexible content” that will be in place for five to 10 years.

VISION AND ROADMAP

SETDA also advocates for state and district leaders to “establish a clear vision for the use of digital and open content, and clearly communicate that vision to school leaders, teachers, publishers, technology companies serving the education community, and the public at large.”31 Instead of solely looking at textbooks, such visions should take into account all materials’ flexibility, quality, and effectiveness. The recommended goals of state and district leaders’ vision are listed on the next page in Figure 1.4.32

TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Although some states and districts have made the transition to digital curriculum using the “learn by doing” approach, with teachers experimenting with technology to find its best uses, it is most effective to transition to digital curriculum after giving teachers “a school year’s worth of preparation.”33 SETDA finds that this is the ideal amount of time “to let educators become comfortable using the computing devices themselves, learn how to integrate digital content into their lessons, and work with cohorts to begin restructuring lesson plans and teaching materials.” Many states and districts are also focusing on providing professional development courses for teachers, so that they can continue to learn more about how to integrate subject matter with technology. SETDA states that “educators also can use their devices to further their own education, by streaming professional development lessons and collaborating online via voice, text, and video with peers in formal and informal learning settings.”34 More information about specific forms of professional development will be included in the following subsection, “Usage of Federal Funds,” as well as in Section II of this report.

29 “Out of Print: Reimagining the K‐12 Textbook in a Digital Age,” Op. cit., p. 2 . 30 Ibid., p. 3. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid., p. 32. 34 Ibid.



Figure 1.4: Recommended Goals of State and District Leaders’ Digital Curriculum Vision

Source: SETDA35

USAGE OF FEDERAL FUNDS

According to a 2014 brief from the U.S. Department of Education, states can utilize federal funding to support digital learning in various ways, including: “improvising and personalizing professional learning and other supports for educators; increasing access to high‐quality digital content and resources for students; facilitating educator collaboration and communication; and providing devices for students to access digital learning resources.”36 Specifically, states can use laws such as the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (ESA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to support the transition to digital curriculum, even if “the program statutes do not reference educational technology specifically.” Below are some examples of how states can use federal funds to support the transition to digital curriculum:37

Professional Development

Online Professional Development: States and districts may use Title II‐A funds to help district staff create or participate in personalized digital learning opportunities for teachers that help move districts away from one‐size‐fits‐all professional development. This may take the form of ‘blended’ professional learning, webinars, simulations, online conferences, massive open online courses (MOOCs), or online communities of practice. These strategies may help teachers better understand the

35 Quoted verbatim from: Ibid. 36 “Federal Funds Technology.” United States Department of Education. February 2014.

http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2013/06/Federal‐Funds‐Tech‐DC‐.pdf 37 Bullets quoted, with some alterations, from: Ibid.

Eliminate unnecessary regulations and enact supportive policies.

•States, districts, and publishers must re‐examine and revamp all processes for the creation, acquisition, and use of instructional materials to take advantage of what digital content can bring to the education sector.

Invest in infrastructure and devices to support

the shift.

•States and districts should pursue cost‐effective collaborative purchasing of student computing devices and increase flexibility of funding in dedicated funding streams to optimize the use of digital resources in schools, and to leverage the larger print to digital shift in education across assessment, instruction, and professional learning.

Ensure effective implementation of digital

policies.

•To be successful, states and districts must identify and disseminate effective models of implementation on how to make the shift from print to digital, including for teacher preparation and support.



subjects they teach, improve their instruction, and demonstrate proficiency in using technology to support learning.

Digital Competency‐Based Professional Development: States may use Title II‐A funds to develop, or help school districts develop performance systems that reward and acknowledge professional learning outcomes that are competency‐based rather than time‐ or input‐based. This may include creation or coaching in the use of online portfolios or digital badges in place of seat‐time‐based certificates.

Student Materials, Resources, and Support

Access to College‐ and Career‐Ready (CCR) Digital Resources: States and districts may use Title II‐A funds to help educators better discover, use, and share content that is aligned with CCR standards.

Use of Technology in the Individualized Education Program Process: States may use IDEA Part B set‐aside funds to support the use of technology to help reduce paperwork and digitize the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process for families and teachers.

Educator Communication and Collaboration

Technology to Communicate with Parents: States may use IDEA Part D State Professional Development Grants (SPDG) to enhance both special education and general education teachers’ ability to effectively integrate technology to communicate with parents of students with disabilities.

Technology to Connect Educators with STEM Professionals: States may use Title II‐B Math Science Partnership funds to purchase software and devices that are an essential component of a grantee’s plan to create and provide digital professional learning communities (PLCs) with practicing scientists or engineers.

Devices

Mobile Learning Devices: Districts may use Title I‐A funds to acquire devices (tablets, laptops, etc.) in addition to curriculum and professional development as part of a comprehensive plan in a Title I school‐wide program school. This may include transitioning to school‐wide blended learning or personalized learning models.

Assistive Technology Devices: States may use IDEA Part B funds set aside for state‐level activities to support the use of assistive technology devices that maximize accessibility to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities.

In this way, there are various uses of federal grant program funds that help to “support the development, implementation, and expansion of technology‐based approaches to help improve student achievement and educator effectiveness.”38

38 Ibid.



SECTION II: STATE PROFILES

The following section examines support of the transition to digital curriculum in three states – Texas, Utah, and Virginia. These states were selected due to their prominent and varied support of districts’ transition to digital curriculum, such as unique and effective programming, professional development, and/or methods of funding. Additionally, the selection was based upon availability of information on key details of these states’ activities around digital curriculum.

TEXAS

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the State Board of Education (SBOE) work together to oversee all primary and secondary public education in Texas. Specifically, TEA oversees Texas school districts and administers the distribution of state and federal funding to public schools.39 On its website, TEA has made available its Long Range Plan for Technology (LRPT) for the years 2006‐2020.40 Specifically, the LRPT is a comprehensive plan that works to ensure a “first rate, world class education for every student in the state of Texas,” keeping in mind the innovations and improvements in technology that have rapidly emerged across the world.41

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS ALLOTMENT

In 2012, TEA released a progress report on its 2006‐2020 LRPT, documenting the state’s progress and accomplishments thus far, including “activities initiated by Texas public schools, regional Education Service Centers, and the TEA.”42 At the state level, TEA’s progress report outlines Texas laws regarding the flexible adoption and funding of digital instructional materials:43

During the 82nd Texas legislative session, the legislature passed Senate Bill 6 which extensively modified the process to adopt and purchase textbooks, electronic instructional materials, and technological equipment. The word “textbook” was replaced with “instructional materials” throughout the Education Code, and the State Instructional Materials Fund provided a per‐student Instructional Materials Allotment (IMA) to districts and open‐enrollment charter schools. [emphasis added]

Before this historic legislation, school districts could primarily use state funding only for textbooks approved by the SBOE; now, districts have a lot more flexibility and independence

39 “TEA Mission and Responsibilities.” Texas Education Agency. http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=150 40 “Long Range Plan for Technology (LRPT).” Texas Education Agency.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665 41 “Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006‐2020.” Texas Education Agency, p. iii.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2147494561&libID=2147494558 42 “2012 Progress Report on the Long‐Range Plan for Technology, 2006‐2020.” Texas Education Agency, p. 4.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2147510271&libID=2147510258 43 Ibid, p. 14.



in deciding which materials will be most effective.44 Individual school districts can use their Instructional Materials Allotments (IMAs) to “pay for content – whether in printed or digital form – as well as professional development and technical support to keep the devices and networks working.”45 Although districts are still allowed to order off of a list of high‐quality materials approved by the state, they can also choose materials, equipment, or services that are not on this list, for which they can pay with allotted funds. Examples of instructional materials, technological equipment, and technology services that school districts are allowed to buy using their IMA funds are listed in Figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2.1: Allowable Uses for School Districts’ Instructional Materials Allotment

Source: Region 10 Education Service Center46

Through Senate Bill 6 (SB 6), the IMA “is required by the Texas Education Code to be funded with 50 percent of the distribution from the Permanent School Fund to the Available School Fund, or a different amount determined by the Legislature.”47 In the 2013‐2014 school year, the TEA was appropriated a total of $131,225,473 to fund the IMA. In the current 2014‐2015 school year, the funds have increased to $281,753,687. See Figure 2.2 for a breakdown of

44 “Senate Bill 6: Changes in the Adoption, Purchase, and Distribution of Instructional Materials in Texas.” Texas

Freedom Network Education Fund, September, 2011., p. 1. http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/SB6analysisFINAL.pdf?docID=2801

45 “Out of Print: Reimagining the K‐12 Textbook in a Digital Age,” Op. cit., p. 17. 46 “Instructional Materials Allotment Guidelines.” Region 10 Education Service Center.

http://www.region10.org/r10website/assets/File/EMAT_Ltr_Att_Final.pdf 47 “The Review and Adoption of Instructional Materials.” Texas Legislative Budget Board, January, 2013, p. 1.

http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Publications/Issue_Briefs/317_PE_Instructional_Materials.pdf

•Bilingual/ESL Materials

•English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS)

•Midcycle Instructional Materials

•Consumables

•Commissioner's List of Electronic Textbooks

•Instructional materials not on an adopted listInstructional Materials

•Computers

•Netbooks

•Interactive Tablets

•eBook Readers

•Mobile Devices

•Interactive Whiteboards

Technological Equipment

•Online Instruction

•Staff Development on the use of instructional materials

•Access to technological equipment for instructional use

•Print‐on‐Demand Services

•Salary (technology support)

Technology Services



IMA expenditures. It proves helpful to examine how the numbers have changed from the 2013‐2014 school year to the current 2014‐2015 school year. Because SB 6 allows more flexibility for the purchasing of instructional materials, this likely accounts for at least some of the shift from previously SBOE‐adopted materials to non‐adopted materials which will include digital materials, OERs, and technological equipment and training.

Figure 2.2: Instructional Materials Allotment Expenditures, 2013‐2015

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS ALLOTMENT SCHOOL YEAR2013‐2014*

SCHOOL YEAR2014‐2015*

Mathematics (English and Spanish), Grades K‐2 (Consumables) $15,190,394 $5,483,274

Technology Applications – Subscription Renewals $6,800,767 $0

Previously SBOE‐Adopted Materials (Enrollment Growth) $18,070,671 $4,849,460

Non‐Adopted Instructional Materials (All Subject Areas) $60,429,847 $255,709,456

Technological Equipment $22,071,036 $11,045,476

Commissioner’s List of Electronic Materials $15,611 $60,240

Technology Services

Contracted Services $3,481,791 $1,443,226

Professional Development $804,719 $318,893

Salary $4,360,637 $2,843,662

Total: Technology Services $8,647,147 $4,605,780

Grand Total: Instructional Materials Allotment $131,225,473 $281,753,687

Source: Texas Education Agency48 *Numbers are rounded to the nearest dollar.

TECHNOLOGY LENDING PROGRAM GRANT

SB 6 also instituted a Technology Lending Program Grant (TLPG) to fund technology loaning programs for school districts.49 Specifically, the grant program “award[s] funds to school districts and open‐enrollment charter schools to implement or enhance an existing technology lending program to loan students the equipment necessary to access and use electronic instructional materials.”50 Thus, all students are able to have access to personal technology devices – even those who would not otherwise be able to afford such technology, and/or students who do not have computing access at home. In order for a school district or charter school to be eligible for review, 40 percent of their students must be classified as economically disadvantaged.51 In 2012, the State of Texas awarded 124 grants, adding up to a total of $9,715,085. Funds are based on the number of students enrolled in the district:52

48 “Instructional Materials Allotment Expenditures.” Texas Education Agency.

https://faulk.tea.state.tx.us/ematevi/EMATREPORTS/RptInst/IMA_EXP_RPT2.pdf 49 “Technology Lending Program Grant (TLPG).” Region 10 Education Service Center. http://www.region10.org/tlpg/ 50 Ibid. 51 “Technology Lending Program Grant Eligibility.” Region 10 Education Service Center.

http://www.region10.org/tlpg/eligibility.cfm 52 “TLPG Application Review Process,” Region 10 Education Service Center.

http://www.region10.org/tlpg/documents/tlpg_application_review_process.pdf



Enrollment greater than 10,000: 18 grants totaling $2,214,706 (average of $123,039 each)

Enrollment between 1,600 and 9,999: 45 grants totaling $4,475,099 (average of $99,447 each)

Enrollment less than 1,600: 61 grants totaling $3,025,986 (average of $49,590 each)

In 2014, it is anticipated that “approximately 130 grants will be awarded ranging in amounts from $50,000 to $100,000.”53 There is currently $10,000,000 appropriated by the state for the total TLPG.

VIRTUAL SCHOOL NETWORK

In addition to offering flexible funding for digital materials and creating a technology lending program, Texas has also focused on creating and distributing online resources – such as high‐quality and interactive online courses – to students. Region 10 Education Service Center and Harris County Department of Education have collaborated to establish the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN), which includes two components – the Statewide Course Catalog and the Online Schools Program – detailed in Figure 2.3.54 It is important to note, however, that the TxVSN is not funded by the state. Instead, the district funds courses, with the TxVSN gathering payments from districts and in turn compensating the course provider.55

Figure 2.3: TxVSN Components, 200756

53 “Technology Lending Program Grant.” Texas Education Agency. http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769809899 54 “Frequently Asked Questions.” Texas Virtual School Network.

http://www.txvsn.org/portal/AboutUs/FAQ.aspx#General%20Questions 55 Ibid. 56Bullet points taken almost verbatim from: “Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN). Texas Education Agency.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=4840

Statewide Course Catalog

•Provides supplemental online courses for high school graduation to students in grades 8‐12

•Offers students across the state opportunities to enroll in high school, Advanced Placement, and dual credit courses provided by eligible Texas school districts, open‐enrollment charter schools, education service centers, and public or private institutions of higher education

Online Schools Program (OLS)•Offers full‐time virtual instruction through eligible public schools to Texas public school students in grades 3‐12

•Instruction provided through the TxVSN OLS is 100 percent virtual, and students participating in the program are not required to be physically present on campus during instruction



PROJECT SHARE

Finally, in order to facilitate digital sharing among educators, TEA has established Project Share, “an online community for teachers to collaborate, research, and share resources,” which is free for all Texas educators.57 According to Project Share’s website, the overall mission is to provide opportunities for:58

Communicating and disseminating information from state, region, and district levels;

Creating or joining common interest networks to increase teacher‐to‐teacher collaboration, conversations with experts, and communication with students in a secure online environment;

Accessing state‐adopted and approved materials, including electronic textbooks and other materials developed through TEA partnerships;

Accessing educational resources through McDonald Observatory StarDate, PBS Digital Learning Library, Texas PBS, and many others;

Accessing Texas Education on iTunes U to explore the history and cultures of Texas, view educational tutorials, and download resources for personalized learning;

Collaborating on the development, dissemination, and evaluation of online professional development sessions and courses;

Highlighting individual accomplishments through the development of ePortfolios; and

Developing and sharing ideas and resources.

As of a 2013 report, TEA continues working to provide “faster, easier access to all resources,” in addition to “integrating statewide applications with locally‐managed technology solutions.”59 Overall, the system has customized “access to resources for 300,000 teachers and administrators and four million students across the state.” 60 Professional development is a main benefit of the Project Share initiative. Project Share offers a variety of online professional development courses, such as an “A+Rise Online Tutorial,” in which teachers can learn about the A+Rise Standards2Strategy system and can gain “navigation tips on strategy selection for instructional support.”61 Another professional development course example is “Algebra I End‐of‐Course Success Facilitated,” through which teachers become better equipped to improve overall math instruction to support student success.

57 “Out of Print, Reimagining the K‐12 Textbook in a Digital Age,” Op. cit. 58 Bullets quoted from: “About Us.” Project Share. http://www.projectsharetexas.org/about 59 “Project Share – August 30, 2013.” Texas Education Agency.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769807128 60 “Out of Print: Reimagining the K‐12 Textbook in a Digital Age,” Op. cit.., p. 18. 61 “Professional Development in Project Share: New Courses for Summer 2012.” Project Share.

http://www.projectsharetexas.org/node/370



All in all, the State of Texas’ general philosophy regarding the transition to digital curriculum is to “clear hurdles standing in the way of local adoption and let individual districts and educators make decisions.”62 Texas offers schools and districts digital content resources, professional development initiatives, and funding; however, as long as districts spend their funds in ways that fit with criteria and are tied to student learning, they are given a great deal of independence.

UTAH

Utah is another state that is a leader in the transition to digital curriculum. In Digital Learning Now’s Digital Learning Report Card, referenced earlier in the report, Utah is tied for first place with a score of 92 percent. Overall, the report card measures “state policies on digital learning based on their alignment to the 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning.”63 These 10 elements include student eligibility, student access, personalized learning, advancement, quality content, quality instruction, quality choices, assessment and accountability, funding, and delivery.64 Similar to Texas, the State of Utah is a strong supporter of the transition to digital curriculum, but allows school districts to have a great deal of autonomy.

OER PILOT PROGRAMS AND DATABASE

According to SETDA, Utah is the “geographic center to the K‐12 OER movement in this country.”65 Specifically, in 2012, the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) announced its development and support of open textbooks in a variety of key curriculum areas: secondary language arts, science, and mathematics. Utah had previously conducted a number of pilot programs, through which “open textbooks had been printed and provided to more than 3,800 Utah high school science students at a cost of about $5 per book, compared to an average cost of about $80 for a typical high school science textbook.” 66 Pilot programs were conducted by Brigham Young University’s Public School Partnership, along with USOE, and funding was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Overall, Utah’s pilot programs were effective in that they helped to inform and provide support for the state’s decision to help transition districts to digital curriculum. Utah’s OER system works through an online state database that “educators can sort by publisher, subject, category, course, and adoption action, such as ‘Recommended Teacher Resource.’”67 Utah’s Instructional Materials Center recommends textbooks and other materials to USOE in order to create this database. It is important to note, however, that “neither body mandates the use of the content in its public schools” – the state maintains a

62 “Out of Print: Reimagining the K‐12 Textbook in a Digital Age,” Op. cit., p. 18. 63 “2013 Report Card.” Digital Learning Now. http://digitallearningnow.com/report‐card/ 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 “Utah State Office of Education to Create Open Textbooks.” Utah State Office of Education, January, 2012.

http://www.schools.utah.gov/main/INFORMATION/Online‐Newsroom/DOCS/01252012OpenTextbook.aspx 67 “Out of Print: Reimagining the K‐12 Textbook in a Digital Age,” Op. cit., p. 18.



list of approved materials, but individual districts have the choice of deciding which materials to adopt.

STATEWIDE ONLINE EDUCATION PROGRAM

Utah’s support of digital curriculum includes online courses. In 2011, SB65 established the Utah Statewide Online Education Program (SOEP), which allows students in any public high school in Utah “to take individual online courses from any approved provider in the state, whether or not their own district offers an online option.”68 In other words, students are able to earn high school graduation credit through the “completion of publicly funded online courses” that are not necessarily in their own school district.69 Students are permitted to take “the equivalent of three online classes as part of their regular course load.” Currently, available online courses include a variety of subjects: core subjects, electives, world languages, CTE, Advanced Placement, and others.70 There are many goals and benefits of the Statewide Online Education Program, particularly regarding the high quality and personalized curriculum that allows individual students to customize their educational programs. Ten of the main purposes of the program are detailed on USOE’s website:71

Provide students with access to online learning regardless of where students attend school;

Provide high quality learning options for students regardless of language, residence, family income, or special needs;

Provide online learning options to allow students to acquire the knowledge and technology skills necessary in a digital world;

Utilize the power and scalability of technology to customize education so that students may learn in their own style preference and at their own pace;

Utilize technology to remove the constraints of traditional classroom learning, allowing students to access learning virtually at any time and in any place and give students the flexibility to take advantage of their peak learning time;

Provide personalized learning where students can spend as little or as much time as they need to master the material;

Provide greater access to self‐paced programs enabling high‐achieving students to accelerate academically, while struggling students may have additional time and help to gain competency;

Allow students to customize their schedule to better meet their academic goals;

68 “8 Ways to Enhance Digital Learning in Utah Schools.” Sutherland Institute, June, 2012, p. 3.

http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/uploads/Digital%20Learning.pdf 69 “Statewide Online Education Program.” Utah State Office of Education. http://www.schools.utah.gov/edonline/ 70 “Statewide Online Education Program.” Parents for Choice in Education. http://choiceineducation.org/policy‐and‐

innovations/the‐statewide‐online‐education‐program 71 Bullets quoted from: “Statewide Online Education Program.” Utah State Office of Education.

http://www.schools.utah.gov/edonline/



Provide quality learning options to better prepare students for post‐secondary education and vocational or career opportunities; and

Allow students to have an individualized educational experience.

The SB65 bill appropriates $250,000 to the State Board of Education from the Education Fund.72 The fee for individual online courses is “equal to the product of: adjusted per pupil revenues; and one‐eighth the number of credits a student may earn for the online course.” The online learning providers receive payment for online courses that varies based on the course length.

EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM

In 2012, the Utah State Legislature passed HB 513 – an Early Intervention Program to provide an “electronic adaptive learning technology and assessment reading and numeracy program for students in grades K‐1.”73 The bill’s text states that this early intervention program is “targeted to at‐risk students,” and is delivered “partly through a voluntary enhanced kindergarten program at school districts and charter schools that choose to offer the program.”74 Overall, the money appropriated in this bill includes $7.5 million from the Education Fund, in addition to $2.5 million to the State Board of Education (SBOE) Initiative Programs from the Education Fund. In creating this program, the SBOE provides funding for five technology providers that submitted proposals: Waterford Early Math and Reading, Imagine Learning, Voyager, Curriculum Associates, and Compass Learning.75 The state worked to make an effective transition to these new providers by holding a statewide information session, which all districts and charter schools were invited to attend to learn more about each program. The state also worked to create an evaluation system to ensure the program was effective. Together, the University of Utah Education Policy Center and USOE designed an external evaluation that “included a review of: 1) the implementation of the program; 2) benefits of the program; and 3) student learning outcomes where data were available.”76 The evaluation surveyed teachers, principals, and technology directors and support personnel about “implementation, ease of use, and perceived challenges and benefits,” and the evaluation also consisted of a review of student performance data.77

72 “SB65 Statewide Online Education Program.” Utah State Legislature.

http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/static/SB0065.html 73 Hales, B., Dickson, S., and Hall, T. “Early Intervention Computer Software Report.” Utah State Office of Education,

November, 2013, p. i. http://www.schools.utah.gov/legislativematerials/2013/Nov/EarlyInterventionComputerSoftwareReport2013.aspx

74 “H.B. 513 Substitute Early Intervention Program.” Utah State Legislature. http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/static/HB0513.html

75 Hales, Dickson, and Hall, Op. cit., p. i. 76 Ibid., p. ii. 77 Ibid.



VIRGINIA

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

In its transition to digital curriculum, the State of Virginia is especially strong in its administration and support of professional development initiatives. The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) offers “six‐week facilitated online courses” through a grant with Intel that are “available to educators in Virginia at no cost.”78 The courses are conducted completely online, and take approximately 30 hours (or five hours per week) to finish. VDOE states that the courses are facilitated by Virginia educators, and that “participants receive a certificate at the end that can be used towards 30 recertification points.”79 Fall session courses in 2014 will include the following:80

Thinking Critically with Data – critical thinking and data analysis with kids

Project‐Based Approaches – foster self‐directed learning

Assessment in 21st Century Classroom – develop student‐centered assessment

Collaboration in the Digital Classroom – use online tools to assist collaboration in the classroom

Inquiry in the Science Classroom – develop students’ abilities in authentic inquiry activities

Designing Blended Learning – design your own blended learning experience for students

Mobile Learning – two‐part course introducing mobile learning and how to use mobile devices to encourage creativity

The VDOE website provides a great deal of information for educators considering enrolling in professional development courses.81 For example, the Assessment in 21st Century Classrooms course description is extremely comprehensive:

The Intel Teach Elements: Assessment in 21st Century Classrooms course is an interactive e‐learning experience that offers an in‐depth look at assessment that meets the needs of 21st century teaching and learning. In this course, teachers see how assessment strategies can benefit their teaching practices and their students’ learning. They learn how to plan, develop, and manage student‐centered assessment. They follow three teachers and see how the three teachers are implementing embedded and ongoing assessment methods in their classrooms. The

78 “VDOE‐sponsored Intel Elements Professional Development.” Virginia Department of Education.

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/technology/professional_dev/index.shtml 79 Ibid. 80 Bullet points taken verbatim from: Ibid. 81 Ibid.



course offers opportunities to apply the assessment concepts with action planning exercises.82

The VDOE additionally lists 20 separate goals of the course, followed by information about the course length. This course is divided into six Modules: “each content Module includes individual work to learn concepts of assessment in the 21st Century classroom through interactive tutorials and exercises, a facilitated online discussion, and individual work developing a final project.”83 The five Modules are: 1) 21st Century Learning, 2) Assessment Strategies, 3) Assessment Methods, 4) Assessment Development, and 5) Assessment in Action. Finally, the VDOE provides educators with information about course requirements. For this course, requirements include posting at least three times in each Module discussion forum, creating an assessment plan as a final project, and completing orientation and final course surveys.84 Overall, the state ensures that educators know what to expect when enrolling in such professional development initiatives. The state’s website offers details of educational technology conferences in Virginia that educators can choose to attend, such as the VSTE Annual Technology in Education Conference and the Educational Technology Leadership Conference.85

82 “Assessment in 21st Century Classrooms.” Virginia Department of Education.

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/technology/professional_dev/intel_elements/assessments_in_21st_century.doc

83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 “VDOE‐sponsored Intel Elements Professional Development,” Op. cit.



PROJECT EVALUATION FORM Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds partner expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

CAVEAT The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every partner. Neither the publisher nor the authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Partners requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.



1700 K Street, NW, 8th Floor

Washington, DC 20006

P 202.559.0500 F 866.808.6585

www.hanoverresearch.com