This template was developed to assist districts in the ...€¦ · Web viewAppendix J – Technology Plan Contact Information. Education Technology Plan Review System (ETPRS) Contact

Appendix J – Technology Plan Contact Information

Education Technology Plan Review System (ETPRS)Contact Information

County & District Code: 17 - 10173 School Code (Direct funded charters only): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LEA Name: Lake County Office of Education

*Salutation: Mr. x Ms. Dr.*First Name: Timothy *Last Name: Gill *Job Title: Director, Curriculum & Instruction/CTAP Coordinator *Address: 1152 South Main St. *City: Lakeport *Zip Code: 95453 *Telephone: (707) 262-4152 Ext: Fax: 707-263-0197_______________________________________________________________E-Mail: [email protected]

Please provide backup contact information.1st Backup Name: Blaze King 1st Backup E-Mail: [email protected] 2nd Backup Name: Jan Bailey 2nd Backup E-Mail: [email protected]

*Required information in the ETPRS

Lake County Office of Education District Technology Plan 2009-2012

LAKE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN

JULY 1, 2009 – JUNE 30, 2012

PREPARED BY THE LAKE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATIONTECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE


TABLE OF CONTENTS

District Summary and Plan Duration (Criteria Item 1)............................................................1-4

Stakeholders Involvement (Criteria Item 2) .................................................................................4

Curriculum Driven Technology Goals(Criteria Item 3) .........................................................................................................................5-13

Professional Development and Implementation(Criteria Item 4)........................................................................................................................13-21

Infrastructure, Hardware, Technical Support, and Software(Criteria Item 5)........................................................................................................................22-25

Funding and Budget (Criteria Item 6)........................................................................................................................25-27

Monitoring and Evaluation (Criteria Item 7).............................................................................................................................27

Effective Collaborative Strategies With Adult Literacy Providers to Maximize the Use of Technology Criterion (Criteria Item 8).............................................................................................................................28

Effective, Research-Based Methods, Strategies, and Criteria(Criteria Item 9)........................................................................................................................28-32


Lake County Office of Education Technology PlanJuly 1, 2009 – June 30, 2012

District Overview

MissionThe mission of the Lake County Office of Education (LCOE), the common link in public education serving a geographically isolated area, provides leadership and support to our schools and communities by planning, coordinating, facilitating, and delivering exemplary services and educational programs. Furthermore, the mission of the Lake County Office of Education’s Alternative Education Programs is to engage “at-risk” youth by providing life-long learning services, which promote the development of personal, social, and academic skills for success.

SchoolsLake County Office of Education operates the following schools:

Clearlake Community School (Grades 9-12)Lloyd P. Hance Community School (Grades 9-12)Lake County Community Day School (Grades 4-8)Renaissance Court School (Grades 7-12)

Schools by TypeLake County Office of Education, 2007-08

Number of

Schools EnrollmentFull-Time Equivalent

Teachers1Pupil-Teacher

Ratio2

Community Day 1 8 1.0 8.0

Juvenile Court 1 32 1.0 32.0

County Community 2 55 3.0 18.3

Total 4 95 5.0 19.0

Enrollment by GradeLake County Office of Education, 2007-08

Lake County Office of Education 1 District Technology Plan 2009-2012

Enrollment

Grade 5 2

Grade 6 2

Grade 7 2

Grade 8 5

Grade 9 22

Grade 10 17

Grade 11 25

Grade 12 20

Total 95

Average Class SizeLake County Office of Education, 2007-08

District County

Number of Classes1 Average Class Size Average Class Size

Schoolwide 28 15.1 21.3

4-8 Combinations 1 8.0 24.8

English 4 24.0 21.0

Math 3 23.3 22.4

Social Science 11 7.9 22.4

Science 4 16.8 22.7

Students by EthnicityLake County Office of Education, 2007-08

District County

Enrollment Percent of Total Percent of Total

American Indian 18 18.9% 5.3%

Asian 0 0.0% 0.7%

Pacific Islander 1 1.1% 0.4%

Filipino 0 0.0% 0.5%

Hispanic 19 20.0% 19.9%

African American 4 4.2% 2.7%

White 51 53.7% 63.9%

Multiple/No Response 2 2.1% 6.6%

Total 95 100% 100%


Special ProgramsLake County Office of Education, 2007-08

District County

Number of Students Percent of Enrollment Percent of Enrollment

English Learners 7 7.4% 10.5%

Free/Reduced Price Meals1 87 91.6% 63.3%

Compensatory Education 317 333.7% 70.5%

Alternative EducationLake County Office of Education, 2007-08

Alternative Enrollment

Percent of Total Enrollment

Pregnant/Parenting 14 14.7%

Total (Unduplicated) 14 14.7%

Languages of English Learner StudentsLake County Office of Education, 2007-08

Number of Students Percent of Enrollment

Spanish 7 7.4%

Total 7 7.4%

Certificated StaffLake County Office of Education, 2007-08

District County

Number of Staff Full-Time Equivalents Per Pupil Ratio Per Pupil Ratio

Administrators 10 9.1 10.4 179.2

Pupil Services 5 4.3 22.1 216.9

Teachers 6 5.0 19.0 19.2

Teachers by Type of AssignmentLake County Office of Education, 2007-08

Number of Teachers Full-Time Equivalents


Self-Contained Classroom 1 1.0

Subject Area1 5 4.0

Vocational Education 1 0.0

Special Education 0 0.0

Other2 0 0.0

Total 7 5.0

1. PLAN DURATIONThe Lake County Office of Education educational technology plan covers three years, from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012. It will serve as the primary tool to guide the district’s acquisition, sustainability, and integration of technology to support the district’s curricular goals. This plan will be monitored by the LCOE Technology Committee (Director of Community Schools, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Director of Information Technology, Director of Business Services, and the teachers of the LCOE Community Schools). The plan will be reviewed and revised annually by all technology stakeholders. Any modifications required through such review will be communicated to the County Superintendent, the County Board of Education, and the leadership of CTAP Region 1. The district Technology Committee will then work with the Superintendent to implement any required revisions directly with district and site leadership teams and site-based administrators.

2. STAKEHOLDERSThe LCOE Tech Plan writing team consisted of the following members:

Linda Tyner, Director, Community SchoolsBlaze King, Director, Information TechnologyTim Gill, Director, Curriculum & InstructionMichelle Buell, Director, Business Services Valuable input was received on a variety of issues related to planning for the Tech Plan, including the students and staff of the LCOE Community Schools, the leadership of Region 1 CTAP and Region 1 RSDSS, and administrators of the seven Lake County districts served by our alternative education programs.

3. CURRICULUM COMPONENT


3a. Description of teachers’ and students’ current access to technology tools both during the school day and outside of school hours.

All LCOE teachers have personnel computers with access to internet, email, AERIES, and electronic grade book software.

Clearlake Community School: Each high school classroom has three student computers with internet access and MS office software. Each middle school classroom has two student computers. The media center has 19 student computers with internet access, MS Office software, a networked printer, and Study Island CAHSEE Preparation access. The school also has two projectors available for both the middle school and high school classrooms. Access to all technology is available to students and teachers both during regular school hours and during the After School and Modified Day programs.

Renaissance Court School (Juvenile Hall): The school has a fully functioning ROP technology classroom.

Special Education: The special education classroom has two student computers with internet access and MS office software.

3b. Description of the district’s current use of hardware and software to support teaching and learning.

AERIES: The school utilizes the AERIES student information system for attendance, student achievement data, special education data, and parent/family/guardian contact information. Lake County probation officers utilize AERIES in tracking student compliance with probation issues.

The staff uses the technology tools embedded in the SBE approved mathematics program (McDougall Little Course 1, Course 2, Algebra I) including PowerPoint presentations, teacher tools, tutorials, and the test item generator. The staff will use similar resources embedded in the new ELA program to be adopted during the 2009-10 school year.

Students participate in online CAHSEE preparation for both mathematics and ELA via the Study Island web-based state assessment preparation program.

LCOE staff utilizes CDE web-based tools for analyzing student performance data, including Adequate Yearly Progress and Academic Performance Index. These tools include student data available via Data Quest and the use of the API calculation spreadsheet provided by CDE.

LCOE Community School STAR data files are converted to sortable Excel spreadsheets via the Data Driven Classroom’s Data Extractor program.

Students receive instruction in the proper use of the internet for research projects, resume planning, and the exploration of career and higher education opportunities.

School and District staff use the web-based Zimbra Collaboration Suite for email communication and calendar sharing.

3c. Summary of the district’s curricular goals that are supported by this tech plan.


Both the Single Plan for Student Achievement and the Local Education Agency Plan state that, “All students will reach high standards, at a minimum, attaining proficiency or better in reading/mathematics by 2013/14.” Prior to the development of both plans, the majority of instruction in the district was individualized with the goal being credit recovery. As such, the district is in the early stages of aligning instruction to the California Academic Content Standards and the CST and CAHSEE blueprints. The average student in the LCOE Community School programs is enrolled for fewer than 90 days. The first step in aligning our instruction to standards and blueprints is to identify those key standards in ELA and mathematics that students must master if they are to pass the CAHSEE or become proficient on the CST for ELA or mathematics. Keeping in mind the limited time we have with our students, pacing calendars are being developed that provide our students with the greatest opportunity for success. These pacing calendars will be developed for SBE approved curriculum programs in ELA and mathematics. LCOE adopted the McDougal Littell Course 1, Course 2, Algebra I program in 2007-08 and teachers were SB 472 trained in the new program. Due to the new mathematics program and the training the teachers received, developing pacing calendars will focus on mathematics in 2008-09. The adoption of ELA materials will happen in 2008-09, with SB 472 training in summer 2009. Pacing calendars will then be developed for ELA during the 2009-10 school year. In the third year of the plan, pacing calendars for both subjects will be reviewed and refined to better meet the needs of our students. Technology tools embedded in both the ELA and mathematics programs and the technology tools available from CDE will be utilized by the staff in the development of the standards-aligned pacing calendars.

3d. List of clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan for using technology to improve teaching and learning by supporting the district curricular goals and academic content standards.

Goal 3d: All Students will reach high standards, at a minimum, attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013-14. (LEAP Performance Goal #1)

Objective 3d.1: By June 2012, the mean CST scaled score for ELA and mathematics of long term 90-day enrolled students in the juvenile court and community schools with 90% attendance will increase by 15%.

Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2010, the percentage of long term 90-day enrolled students in the juvenile court and community schools with 90% attendance will increase their CST scaled scores in ELA and mathematics by 5%.

Year 2 Benchmark: Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2011, the percentage of long term 90-day enrolled students in the juvenile court and community schools with 90% attendance will increase their CST scaled scores in ELA and mathematics by 10%.

Year 3 Benchmark: Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, the percentage of long term 90-day enrolled students in the juvenile court and community schools with 90% attendance will increase their CST scaled scores in ELA and mathematics by 15%.


Objective 3d.2: LCOE will meet or exceed all Academic Performance Index (API) growth targets.

Year 1 Benchmark: For the 2009-10 school year, the district API will meet or exceed a score of 500.

Year 2 Benchmark: For the20010-11 school year, the district API will meet or exceed a score of 515.

Year 3 Benchmark: For the 2011-12 school year, the district API will meet or exceed a score of 530.

Implementation Plan

Objective Activities Schedule/Timeline3d.1 & 2 LCOE C&I Director will train staff on the use of CST and

CAHSEE blueprintsJanuary 2009

3d.1 & 2 LCOE C&I Director will meet with staff during common collaboration time to facilitate the identification of key standards

February 2009

3d.1 & 2 LCOE C&I Director will train staff on the development of pacing calendars for the four academic content areas including the identification of curriculum embedded, periodic benchmark assessments that are aligned to the pacing calendars.

March 2009

3d.1 & 2 LCOE C&I Director will facilitate common collaboration meetings dedicated to completing the pacing calendars and benchmark assessments

April 2009

3d.1 & 2 Pacing Calendars and benchmark assessments will be implemented for the 2009-10 school year.

September 2009

Monitoring and Evaluation

Objective Tool/Data Source Schedule/Timeline Title of Person(s) Responsible

3d.1 & 2 Key Standards and Pacing Calendar documents

Yearly (see above) Director, LCOE Community School.LCOE Director C & I

3d.1 & 2 CAHSEE pass rates, CST Scaled Scores

Yearly Director, LCOE Community School.LCOE Director C & I

3e. . List of clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan as to how and when students will acquire technology and information literacy skills needed to succeed in the classroom and the workplace.

Goal 3e: All Students will have access to high-quality instruction in technology skills and information literacy skills.

Objective 3e.1: All LCOE schools will increase availability of course offerings related to technology skills and information literacy over the next three years.


Year 1 Benchmark: 50% of long term, 90-day enrolled students in the juvenile court and community schools with 90% attendance, will receive direct instruction in the use of:

word processing software (Microsoft Word) for the production of written work in ELA and other academic content areas

the Internet as a source of information for research projects, and in analyzing this information for reliability.

presentation software (Microsoft PowerPoint) and will be required to produce at least one presentation each year.









Implementation Plan

Objective Activities Schedule/Timeline3e.1 Course outlines and syllabi will be created for technology

electives at both the middle school and high school levels.

September 2009

Teachers will receive training in Information Literacy via CTAP Region 1.

September 2009

LCOE will explore options for increasing the number of ROP technology offerings available to students at LCOE school sites, at Adult Education ROP, and at our local community colleges.

September 2010


Objective Tool/Data Source Schedule/Timeline Title of Person(s) Responsible

3e.1 Course outlines and syllabi documents

September 2009 Director, LCOE Community School.LCOE Director C & I

Information Literacy training registration and evaluations January 2010

Director, LCOE Community School.LCOE Director C & I


Course outlines and syllabi documents

September 2010 Director, LCOE Community School.LCOE Director C & I

3f. List of goals and an implementation plan that describe how the district will address ethical use of information technology so they can distinguish lawful from unlawful uses of copyrighted works, including: the concept and purpose of copyright and fair use; lawful and unlawful downloading and peer-to-peer file sharing; and avoiding plagiarism.

Goal 3f: All LCOE students will distinguish lawful from unlawful uses of copyrighted works, including the following topics: the concept and purpose of both copyright and fair use; distinguishing lawful from unlawful downloading and peer-to-peer file sharing; and avoiding plagiarism.

Implementation Plan

Activities Timeline Person(s) Responsible

Monitoring & Evaluation

LCOE Board of Trustees will adopt an Internet Use Policy agreement.

All LCOE students and staff will sign the adopted Internet Use Agreement

Spring 2009

Annually, beginning in 2009-2010

Lake County Superintendent of Public Schools

LCOE Community School Director

LCOE Board of Trustees Minutes

Annual collection of Internet Use Agreement Forms

LCOE teachers and administrators will attend Region 1 CTAP training “Web Ethics, Copyright, Plagiarism and Cyber Safety” via WebEx.

February 2009

Director, LCOE Community School,LCOE Director C & I

OMS registration and evaluations

LCOE students will receive direct instruction in the ethical and lawful use of the internet.

Annually Director, LCOE Community School

Community School staff


LCOE staff will attend similar trainings annually to stay current with issues related to Goal 3f.

Annually Director, LCOE Community School,LCOE Director C & I

OMS registration and evaluations.

LCOE staff will conduct an analysis of progress made in relation to Goal 3f.


Community School Director will report to the Asst. Superintendent, Educational Services regarding Goal 3f.


3g. . List of clear goals and an implementation plan that describe how the district will address Internet safety, including how to protect online privacy and avoid online predators.

Goal 3g: All LCOE students will apply Internet safety rules, including how to protect their online privacy and avoid online predators.

Implementation Plan

Activities Timeline Person(s) Responsible

Monitoring & Evaluation

LCOE Board of Trustees will adopt an Internet Use Policy agreement.

All LCOE students and staff will sign the adopted Internet Use Agreement

Spring 2009

Annually, beginning in 2009-2010

Lake County Superintendent of Public Schools

LCOE Community School Director

LCOE Board of Trustees Minutes


LCOE teachers and administrators will attend Region 1 CTAP training “Web Ethics, Copyright, Plagiarism and Cyber Safety” via WebEx.

February 2009

Director, LCOE Community School,LCOE Director C & I

OMS registration and evaluations

LCOE students will receive direct instruction related to internet safety.

Annually Director, LCOE Community School

Community School staff


LCOE staff will attend similar trainings annually to stay current with issues related to Goal 3g.


OMS registration and evaluations.

LCOE staff will conduct an analysis of progress made in relation to Goal 3g.


Community School Director will report to the Asst. Superintendent, Educational Services regarding Goal 3g.

3h. Describe district policy, practices or goals that ensure equitable technology access for all students.

In 2007-08, 91.6% of LCOE students qualified for Free or Reduced Lunch. With a level of high-poverty students that is near 100%, it is imperative that our students, many of whom have little or no access to technology at home, have equitable access to technology at our schools. Thus, all technology is available to all students in the morning as part of the Modified Day program, during regular school hours, and during the after-school program. For students at school sites that do not have a computer lab,


access to classroom computers is comparable to the school sites that have computer labs. The district is committed to providing students access to technology that is as current and up to date as possible, and thus maintains computer labs and classroom computers with hardware and software that is less than five years old.

LCOE is committed to providing students with access to the Internet and thus provides and maintains classroom computers and computer labs with sufficient capability to meet or exceed connectivity needs related to Goals 3e-3g. Hardware and software upgrades and replacements are scheduled and budgeted on an annual basis (provided funding is available).

3i. List clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an 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.

Goal 3i: LCOE Community School staff will have access to and utilize a variety of student achievement data in planning and implementation of instructional activities related to meeting proficiency goals stated for Goal 3d.Objective 3i.1: LCOE Community School staff will utilize student achievement data via Excel spreadsheets containing STAR, CAHSEE, and local benchmark assessments.

Year 1 Benchmark: 50% of LCOE staff will utilize Excel spreadsheets containing STAR, CAHSEE, and local benchmark assessments.



Implementation Plan

Obj. # (Optional)

Activities Schedule/Timeline

3i.1 STAR data conversion and analysis Annually, August/Sept.CAHSEE data conversion and analysis Annually, March/April


Obj. # (Optional)

Tool/Data Source Schedule/Timeline Title of Person(s) Responsible

3i.1 STAR data analysis report Annually, October Director, LCOE Community School,LCOE Director C & I

CAHSEE data analysis report Annually, May Director, LCOE Community School,


3j. List clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan to use technology to improve two-way communication between home and school.

Goal 3j: LCOE Community School staff, students, and families will have open and direct communication related to a wide range of school activities and functions.

Objective 3j.1: LCOE Community Schools will provide students and their families with monthly newsletters via email and US mail. All students will contribute to the creation of one or more newsletters each year.

Year 1 Benchmark: 50% of LCOE students will contribute to the creation of one or more monthly newsletters.



Objective 3j.2: All LCOE students and families will have access to student performance data and other school related information via the AERIES Browser Interface (ABI).

Year 1 Benchmark: 50% of LCOE students will access student or other school related information via the ABI.



Implementation Plan

Obj. # (Optional)


3j.1 Students and staff will contribute to the writing and formatting of the monthly LCOE district newsletter.

Monthly, beginning in Sept. 2009

3j.2 Student and school information will become accessible via the ABI.

September 2009


Obj. # (Optional)


3j.1 Student contributions to the LCOE Community School monthly newsletters

Beginning Sept. 2009

Director, LCOE Community School,Community School staff


Community School students.

3j.2 Monitoring of student and family usage rates of the ABI.

Beginning Sept. 2009

Director, LCOE Community SchoolDirector, Information Technology

3k. 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.

Each spring, the Director of the Lake County Court and Community Schools, the Director of Curriculum and Instruction, and the Director of Information Technology will review recommendations made in the Technology Plan and report to the LCOE Superintendent and Board of Directors on the status of the goals, objectives, and timelines contained therein. After this review, input from the school community will be used to make adjustments to plan to accurately reflect the needs of our students. Data from an annual survey of teachers, administrators, and students will be considered.

4. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT

4a. Summary of the teachers’ and administrators’ current technology skills and needs for professional development.

In general, teachers and administrators at the LCOE Community Schools use technology for email, accessing the internet, basic word processing and presentation creation, and are in the process of implementing electronic attendance and grading (AERIES).



In what ways and to what degree do teachers use technology tools (computers, video, Internet, and hand-held devices) to (number of responses, and relative percentage):Lake County Office of Education 15 District Technology Plan 2009-2012




4b. List clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan for providing professional development opportunities based on the needs assessment and the Curriculum Component objectives (sections 3d – 3j.

Goal 4b: LCOE staff will plan and design instruction that is at grade-level, is standards-based, and provides our students with sufficient instruction to attain proficiency on both the CAHSEE and CSTs. Teachers and students will engage with technology as an integral component of instruction in the attainment of the student performance goals and objectives.

Objective 4b.1: LCOE Staff will engage in a process of identifying key standards in each of the four academic content areas, with an emphasis on the ELA and mathematics CAHSEE standards. These standards will be chosen with recognition of the generally low level of academic skills of alternative education students.

Addresses Objectives 3d.1, 3d.2, and 3i.1

Year 1 Benchmark: Staff will identify 6th grade, 7th grade, and Algebra I mathematics standards that are emphasized on the mathematics portion of the CAHSEE. Pacing calendars will be developed to ensure sufficient instruction for students in these key standards.

Year 2 Benchmark: Staff will identify 6th-8th grade, English Language Arts standards that are emphasized on the ELA portion of the CAHSEE. Pacing calendars will be developed to ensure sufficient instruction for students in these key standards.


Year 3 Benchmark: Staff will review and revise pacing calendars for ELA and Mathematics based on analysis of student CAHSEE and CST achievement data.

Objective 4b.2: The school will implement SBE approved, standards-based curriculum in English Language Arts and mathematics.


Year 1 Benchmark: The school will develop and implement pacing calendars for the McDougall Littell Course 1, Course 2, and Algebra I programs, based on the identification of key standards (Objective 3d.1, Year 1 Benchmark).

Year 2 Benchmark: The school will develop and implement pacing calendars for the SBE approved ELA program that will be adopted by the district in 2008-09, based on the identification of key standards (Objective 3d.1, Year 2 Benchmark).

Year 3 Benchmark: By year 3, all instructional staff will receive SBE approved, SB 472 training in ELA and Mathematics

Objective 4b.3: LCOE Community School staff will utilize student achievement data via MS Excel spreadsheets containing STAR and local benchmark assessments.


Year 1 Benchmark: Student STAR data will be converted to sortable Excel spreadsheets via the Data Driven Classroom’s Data Extractor. Staff will receive training from the LCOE C&I Director on the use of Excel for disaggregating student achievement data.

Year 2 Benchmark: Student STAR data will be converted to sortable Excel spreadsheets via the Data Driven Classroom’s Data Extractor. Staff will receive training from the LCOE C&I Director on the use of student achievement data in the development of pacing calendars and benchmark assessments.

Year 3 Benchmark: Student benchmark assessment data will be converted to sortable Excel spreadsheets. Staff will receive training in the use of local benchmark data in planning for instruction.

Objective 4b.4: LCOE Community School staff will receive training in a variety of technology skills both for personnel use and for instructing students via CTAP Region 1 and Atomic Learning.

Addresses Objectives 3e.1, 3f, and 3g

Year 1 Benchmark: 50% of LCOE staff will receive training in the ethical use of the internet, cyber safety, and in the use of MS Office (Word, PowerPoint, and Excel) programs.




Implementation Plan

Obj. # (Optional)


4b.1 Key Standards/Pacing Trainings Ongoing, beginning Jan. 20094b.2 SB 472 Trainings Ongoing, beginning Aug.

20084b.3 Data Analysis using Excel Trainings Ongoing, beginning March

20094b.4 Technology Trainings Ongoing, beginning Feb.

2009


Obj. # (Optional)


4b.1 Pacing calendars and Key Standards documents

Sept. 2009 Director, LCOE Community SchoolDirector, Curriculum & Instruction

4b.2 SB 472 participation, Curriculum Orders Ongoing Director, LCOE Community SchoolDirector, Curriculum & Instruction

4b.3 Student Data Spreadsheets September 2009 Director, LCOE Community SchoolDirector, Curriculum & Instruction

4b.4 OMS registrations Ongoing, beginning Feb. 2009

Director, LCOE Community SchoolDirector, Curriculum & Instruction

4c. Description of the process that will be used to monitor the Professional Development (Section 4b) goals, objectives, benchmarks and planned implementation activities including roles and responsibilities.

Annually, the LCOE Community School Director will meet with the Technology committee and the Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services, the Region One Director for RSDSS (Regional System of District and School Support), and the Director for Region One CTAP, to review progress made toward the goals and objectives described in sections 3 and 4 related to Curriculum and Instruction and Professional Development. This committee will analyze the effectiveness of the professional development component of the Tech Plan in relation to the districts performance targets and make recommendations for modifications to the Tech Plan to accurately reflect the needs of LCOE students.


5. INFRASTRUCTURE, HARDWARE, TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND SOFTWARE COMPONENT

Currently, the Court and Community and Community Schools for the Lake County of Education have approximately 50 desktop computers in classrooms, labs, and offices at three school sites throughout Lake County. Each school site has access to the County network via T1 1.544Mb/s. The Lake County Office of Education provides CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act) compliant Internet connectivity. The link to the Internet is established by a speed of a 1Gb/s AT&T EGM circuit. Web-based and archive-capable e-mail accounts are provided by the Lake County Office of Education to all staff.

The Lake County Office of Education Information Technology Department consists of 3 full-time positions: Director, Systems Administrator, and Computer Support Technician. Although additional full-time technology support staff is needed, present budget limitations preclude this.

The Court and Community Schools for the Lake County of Education currently provides a limited amount of staff development for technology services, as there are a number of supported operating systems and office productivity suites.

5a. Describe the existing hardware, Internet access, electronic learning resources, and technical support already in the district that will be used to support the Curriculum and Professional Development Components (sections 3 & 4) of the plan.

Clearlake CommunityHardware 1 file server

1 media center – 19 workstations 1 Instructional workstation

Software Available Microsoft Office 2003, Study Island CAHSEE Preparation accessNetwork 100 mbps to the desktop, 1.544Mb/s T1 to County OfficePhysical plant The physical plant is adequate to meet the current needs.Technical support Technical Support provided by County Office Technology Department

Renaissance (Juvenile Hall)Hardware The school has a fully functional ROP technology

classroom.Software Available Microsoft Office 2003Network 100 mbps to the desktop, 1.544Mb/s T1 to County OfficePhysical plant The physical plant is adequate to meet the current needs.Technical support Technical Support provided by County Office Technology Department

Hance CommunityHardware 6 Administration workstationsSoftware Available Microsoft Office 2003Network 10 mbps to the desktop, 1.544Mb/s T1 to County OfficePhysical plant The physical plant is adequate to meet the current needs.Technical support Technical Support provided by County Office Technology Department


5b. Describe the technology hardware, electronic learning resources, networking and telecommunications infrastructure, physical plan modifications, and technical support needed by the district’s teachers, students, and administrators to support the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan.

Clearlake CommunityBy End of Year 1Hardware Budget for replacement or upgrade of fileserver. This will result in more access to

network-based educational applications Physical plant The physical plant is adequate for the terms of this planBy End of Year 2 Provided in course staffing


Hardware Upgrade/replace computer workstations (20)Software Updates Standardization on Microsoft Office ProfessionalNetwork Upgrade to 10Mb/s connection to County Office, unless availability and cost of

faster service is not prohibitive.Physical plant The physical plant is adequate for the terms of this planBy End of Year 3 Provided in course staffingHardware Maintenance of existing server and workstationsSoftware Updates Microsoft Office Professional, appropriate network and client access licenses to

support legal network access for staff and students. Continue to implement software purchased in Years 1 and 2.

Network Maintain network infrastructure and stability

Renaissance (Juvenile Hall)By End of Year 1Hardware Budget for replacement or upgrade of fileserver. This will result in more access to

network-based educational applications. Physical plant The physical plant is adequate for the terms of this planBy End of Year 2 Provided in course staffingSoftware Updates Standardization on Microsoft Office ProfessionalNetwork Upgrade to 10Mb/s connection to County Office, unless availability and cost of

faster service is not prohibitive.Physical plant The physical plant is adequate for the terms of this planBy End of Year 3 Provided in course staffingHardware Upgrade/replace computer workstations (20)Software Updates Microsoft Office Professional, appropriate network and client access licenses to


Network Maintain network infrastructure and stabilityPhysical plant The physical plant is adequate for the terms of this plan

Hance CommunityBy End of Year 1Hardware Budget for replacement or upgrade of fileserver. This will result in more access to

network-based educational applications Physical plant The physical plant is adequate for the terms of this planBy End of Year 2 Provided in course staffingHardware Upgrade/replace computer workstations (6)Software Updates Standardization on Microsoft Office ProfessionalNetwork Upgrade to 10Mb/s connection to County Office, unless availability and cost of

faster service is not prohibitive.Physical plant The physical plant is adequate for the terms of this planBy End of Year 3 Provided in course staffingHardware Maintenance of existing server and workstationsSoftware Updates Microsoft Office Professional, appropriate network and client access licenses to


Network Upgrade to 100Mb/s connection to site router

5c. List of clear annual benchmarks for obtaining the hardware, infrastructure, learning resources and technical support required to support the other plan components.

Items to be Acquired Schedule/Timeline Person Responsible


Fileserver hardware/software for Clearlake Community

6/30/2010 LCOE Technology Dept.

Fileserver hardware/software for Renaissance (Juvenile Hall)


Fileserver hardware/software for Hance 6/30/2010 LCOE Technology Dept.Upgrade/replace computer workstations (6) for Hance


Microsoft Office 2007 for Clearlake Community


Microsoft Office 2007 for Renaissance (Juvenile Hall)


Microsoft Office 2007 for Hance 6/30/2011 LCOE Technology Dept.Upgrade/replace computer workstations (20) for Clearlake Community


Upgrade/replace computer workstations (20) for Renaissance (Juvenile Hall)


Termination equipment for upgraded connection to LCOE for Clearlake Community


Termination equipment for upgraded connection to LCOE for Renaissance (Juvenile Hall)


Termination equipment for upgraded connection to LCOE for Hance


5d. Description of the process that will be used to monitor whether the annual benchmarks including roles and responsibilities.

Each spring, the Director of the Lake County Court and Community Schools, the Director of Curriculum and Instruction, and the Director of Information Technology will review recommendations made in the Technology Plan and report updated status. After this review, the other stakeholders will make adjustments to activities and timelines as necessary. Data from the annual survey of teachers, administrators, and students will be considered.

The Lake County Office of Education will monitor and assess vulnerabilities and provide regular network reports to the Lake County Court and Community Schools. In this way, the investments made throughout the implementation of this plan will remain fully usable and secure.

6. FUNDING AND BUDGET COMPONENT

6a. List of established and potential funding sources and cost savings, present and future.

Note: Funding sources are based on current year and may change with State or Federal budget reallocations.Funding Source Estimated AmountTitle I Part A (rs3010) $54,685Title I Delinquent (rs3025) $34,337Donations – Juvenile Hall (rs0999, prior year carryover) $2,892


General Fund Unrestricted (rs000) TBDTitle II Part D (rs4045) $87Technology – Local Project/MCOE MOU (rs9024) $10,009

TOTAL $102,010

6b. Estimate implementation costs for the term of the plan (3-5 years).

Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Possible Funding Source

CurriculumCurriculum Development $6,000 (60%) $2,000 (20%) $2,000 (20%) Technology

rs9024

Professional DevelopmentStaff Training $3,000 $6,000 $3,000 Title 1 rs3010 and

rs3025Aeries Software Training $1,500 $1,000 $1,000 rs5000

InfrastructureCurrent T1 connectivity charges $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 rs5900Fiber upgrade (10 or 100Mb/s) $12,000 rs5900

HardwareUpgrade/replace computers at Hance (6)

$6,000 rs4400

Upgrade/replace computers at Clearlake Community (20)

$20,000 rs4400

Upgrade/replace computers at Renaissance (Juvenile Hall) (20)

$20,000 rs4400

Network terminating hardware for each site (3)

$9,000 rs4400

Electronic ResourcesMicrosoft Office Pro 2007 $2,500 rs4300

Technical SupportIT Dept. staff time $10,000 (4%) $15,000 (6%) $12,500 (5%)

TOTALS $30,000 $50,000 $63,000 143,000 life of plan


6c. Description of the district’s replacement policy for obsolete equipment.

As the Lake County Office of Education strives to provide the best performance possible in computing hardware for staff and students, the district recommends that equipment is made obsolete after a five (5) year period. This requires budgeting for or replacing at least 20% of the total amount of computers.

6d. Describe the process that will be used to monitor Ed Tech funding, implementation costs and new funding opportunities and to adjust budgets as necessary.

We will take advantage of the semi-annual review process currently in place by the Lake County Office of Education with the Business Services Department. Twice a year, the key stakeholders of this plan will meet with Business Services to monitor Ed Tech funding and spending.

7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION COMPONENT

7a. Describe the process for evaluating the plan’s overall progress and impact on teaching and learning.

LCOE is a Program Improvement Year One district and is utilizing the state tools (Academic Program Survey) for developing an Action Plan for exiting Program Improvement. The district’s Academic Performance Index (API) has been the criteria which has not been met and thus, a variety of student achievement data (STAR, CAHSEE) will be used to assess the overall progress and impact of the Tech Plan of teaching and learning

7b. Schedule for evaluating the effect of plan implementation.

Each spring, the Director of the Lake County Court and Community Schools, the Director of Curriculum and Instruction, and the Director of Information Technology will review recommendations made in the Technology Plan and report to the LCOE Board of Directors on the status on the goals, objectives, and timelines contained therein.

7c. Describe the process and frequency of communicating evaluation results to tech plan stakeholders.

Upon completion of the Technology committee’s review, input from the school community will be used to make adjustments to the plan to accurately reflect the needs of our students. Data from an annual survey of teachers, administrators, and students will be considered.


8. EFFECTIVE COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIES WITH ADULT LITERACY PROVIDERS TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

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.

LCOE Community Schools currently collaborate on a limited basis with the following adult literacy providers to maximize the use of technology:

LCOE ROP offers adult education computer classes for MS Office programs including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.

Migrant Education Region 2 offers support and counseling for migrant students enrolled in our Aspire program for pregnant teens.

9. EFFECTIVE, RESEARCHED-BASED METHODS AND STRATEGIES

9a. Summarize the relevant research and describe how it supports the plan’s curricular and professional development goals.

The goals and objectives of the curricular and professional development sections of the Tech Plan are based on the nine Essential Program Components (EPC’s) described in the California Department of Education’s Academic Program Survey (APS). This tool has been developed by CDE to assist schools and districts that enter Program Improvement and is based on a multitude of research related to effective schools.

The curriculum component of the Tech Plan and the corresponding professional development components are aligned to the following EPCs. The research cited Is taken directly from the following:

California Comprehensive Center (CACC) and American Institutes for Research (AIR)(2006), Research Summary Supporting the Nine Essential Program Components and Academic Program Survey.

EPC 1: Use of State Board of Education (SBE)-adopted (kindergarten through grade eight) or standards-aligned (grade nine through twelve) English-language arts and mathematics instructional materials, including intervention materials.

Research emphasizes the role of curriculum coherence, articulation, and organization in promoting school effectiveness (Purkey & Smith, 1983), which is supported by the state’s core content curricular frameworks and adopted instructional materials. A recent study of California schools that examines the relationship between educational factors and student achievement finds a strong relationship between the implementation of a coherent curriculum and higher Academic Performance Index (API) scores (Williams, Kirst, & Haertel, 2005). A strong curriculum, implemented in a consistent and intensive way, appears most effective for student outcomes when high levels of alignment in curriculum and instruction are combined with the use of assessment data to monitor and evaluate teacher practices (Levin, Haertel, Kirst, Williams, & Perry, 2006). Similarly, a study looking at California high schools “beating the odds” finds that the use of consistent curricula together with frequent diagnostic tests, along with effective instruction and


professional development, results in dramatic gains for high schools serving large populations of low-income, minority, and English learner students (Oberman, Arbeit, Praglin, & Goldstein, 2005). California content standards provide a statewide definition of the skills, concepts, and knowledge all students are expected to achieve, and are designed to help teachers raise student achievement. Content standards, combined with performance standards, which gauge the degree to which students are meeting grade level content standards, go beyond setting common and coherent curricular goals by providing a framework for measuring whether students are making progress (O’Day & Smith, 1993). In fact, a large body of research finds a positive relationship between clear goals and student learning outcomes, emphasizing the importance of embedding content standards in curricular materials (Datnow, Borman, & Stringfield, 2000; Newmann, King, & Youngs, 2000).

Because instructional coherence plays an integral part in successful school improvement efforts (Newmann, Smith, Allenworth, & Bryk, 2001), aligning and articulating intervention materials with core content curriculum and standards is central to supporting student progress toward grade level proficiency. Research suggests that reducing academic content for lower performing students, particularly English learners, can result in tracking of students to below grade-level coursework (Callahan, 2005; Walqui, 2000). Supovitz and Taylor (2005), in their evaluation of systemic reform in a large district, find the district gave special emphasis to increasing the achievement of lower-performing students, provided students not meeting performance standards with a variety of intervention strategies, and assessed individual student data on a regular basis.

EPC 6: Ongoing instructional assistance and support for teachers (use of content experts and instructional coaches)

Providing embedded instructional assistance and support that combines content knowledge and instructional practice provides teachers with sustained opportunities to improve instructional practice and, in turn, improve student achievement. A study by Elmore and Burney (1997), looking at a professional development reform in a large urban district, suggests a continuous improvement, professional learning model that focuses on specific content areas may be an effective approach to large-scale improvement of instructional practice. Peer coaching is one approach to professional learning that impacts the content and delivery of instruction through individualized support to teachers, particularly beginning teachers. Coaching can take a variety of forms, but generally involves sessions that focus on the classroom implementation of curriculum content and analysis of student responses to teaching through technical coaching or team coaching, specifically focused on integrating new teaching practices into classroom instruction through demonstration and practice (Showers & Joyce, 1996).

While professional learning enhances teacher knowledge of content and instructional strategies, it is the transfer of these skills to the classroom that produces results for students. Lieberman and Miller (1990) emphasize the importance of using a content-in-context approach—including dialogue, discussion, and practice of instructional strategies—to help teachers actively expand their teaching techniques. In their studies of peer coaching, Joyce and Showers (1983; 1996) found that teachers who received training using a model that combined theory, demonstration, practice, and coaching showed an 80 percent transfer rate of the new skills to the classroom and improved their ability to implement new strategies appropriately and improved their techniques over time. In addition to assisting teachers to implement new curriculum and strategies into practice, participation in peer coaching also deepens teachers’ subject matter knowledge and increases teacher effectiveness in regard to student work and instructional practice. The literature examining the relationship between teaching and learning emphasizes the importance of ongoing support for teachers to further develop content knowledge and instructional practices to ensure that larger reform efforts impact classroom instruction. In their study of three large urban districts showing a trend of overall improved student achievement and a narrowing gap between white and minority students, Snipes, Doolittle, and Herlighy (2003) found that these districts implemented a coherent instructional plan district-wide, including reading and math curricula, and then supported teacher development around the curricula with teacher coaches and grade-level planning periods. Similarly, findings from a national study of reading growth in high-poverty classrooms suggest a relationship


between research-based instructional practices and student achievement and engagement (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003).

Overall, these results indicate professional development that combines attention to both instructional practice and content knowledge, which can be particularly important for increasing teacher efficacy and positively impacting student achievement in low-performing schools.

EPC 7: Monthly teacher collaboration by grade level (K-8) and department (9-12).

A collaborative school environment—where teachers work together to improve instructional practice—is often characterized as a driver of successful efforts to impact student achievement. Creating a community of connection and collaboration has the potential to renew teachers’ sense of creativity and initiative in their work (Little, 1993; Sawyer, 2001), which influences instructional practices and ultimately student achievement. Building this collaborative environment requires more than occasional teamwork opportunities; school staff need to work together to analyze data and curricular materials to inform their professional practice systematically, with the goal of improving student outcomes. Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) suggest implementing an institutional infrastructure will help to build a collaborative environment. This infrastructure supports teachers’ professional growth by providing structures for knowledge-sharing based on practice as well as sustained, cooperative experiences that allow teachers to reflect on both the process and on the content of what they are learning.

Collaboration should be focused on issues of student achievement and instruction, and should be structured by clear agendas with specific tasks and outcomes for the time being used to ensure the collaboration concretely addresses student needs. DuFour (2001) proposes that school leaders play an active role in facilitating successful collaboration by: (1) building in time for collaboration in the school day and year; (2) identifying critical questions to guide the work of collaborative teams; (3) asking teams to create products as a result of their collaboration; (4) identifying critical questions to guide collaborative teams; and (5) providing relevant data and information. Therefore, the literature clearly points to collaboration as a vital component of professional development (Barton, 2005), with a critical role played by school leadership. Principals and other school leaders need to establish an environment with collaborative problem solving and team-centered relationships (Eastwood & Louis, 1992), and provide focus and support to help the collaborative teams work effectively (Garmstron & Wellman, 2003).

One method for implementing teacher collaboration is through professional learning communities, a structured approach that can include implementing teacher study groups, engaging teachers in research, and providing meaningful professional development. Studies of school-based professional learning communities suggest that positive outcomes of effective teacher collaboration include increased teacher commitment to the school’s mission and goals, higher staff morale, shared responsibility for student development and success, and positive outcomes for students—including smaller achievement gaps among students from diverse backgrounds (Hord, 1997; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). Establishing institutional infrastructure and a school environment that values, supports, and actively structures collaboration to maximize teacher learning therefore, is critical to positively impacting instructional practice and improving achievement.

EPC 8: Lesson and course pacing schedule (K-8) and master schedule flexibility for sufficient numbers of intervention courses (9-12).

To bring a school-wide focus to meeting state standards and improving student achievement, schools often use an instructional pacing schedule—a year-long plan outlining expected progress through the curriculum—combined with extended time intervention programs to provide extra instructional support to students below proficiency in core content areas. These elements provide teachers with a common goal and method to cover the standards while building in the flexibility to meet diverse student needs through interventions aligned and articulated with the core curriculum. While curricular structures vary in the


method used for covering content (Posner, 1974), one approach to a pacing schedule that attempts to ensure all students gain mastery of standards is the use of a “spiraled curriculum” in which skills and concepts are revisited and assessed throughout the year. Reyes and Fletcher (2003) identify spiraling and constant review as one of four common instructional elements of a successful mathematics program for migrant students. For students requiring additional academic support beyond the curricular structures of the pacing schedule, appropriate and timely research-based intervention strategies can help students make progress toward grade-level standards (Corallo & MacDonald, 2002). Investigating how Title I schools integrate curricular standards into their school-wide improvement program, Sunderman and Mickelsen (2000) identify instructional pacing and focused instruction for students not meeting standards as two key elements of their high-performing schools. These schools also had existing programs to provide instruction to low-performing students that were tailored to local context. Similarly, studies of effective high schools have found that intense “catch-up” programs that provide support in reading, mathematics, and science help students spend more time engaged in learning and meet graduation standards (Bottoms & Anthony, 2004; Quint, 2006).

Given the potential of research-based intervention programs to impact achievement, adopted interventions should appropriately serve students, and the additional targeted instruction time—often in the form of extended-period classes for at-risk students such as English learners, or special education students—should be incorporated into the master schedule to ensure students have equal access to the core curriculum. This is particularly crucial for English learners, given their challenge of both achieving content standards and gaining English fluency (August & Hakuta, 1997; Merickel, Parrish, Pérez, Linquanti, Socías, & Spain, 2005). Effective intervention programs also depend on having sufficient scheduled time to present coherent instruction grounded in content standards (Quint, 2006). The coordinated implementation of intervention strategies and an instructional pacing schedule designed to ensure students are exposed to all standards are key pieces to offering a coherent instructional program that meets student needs and improves student achievement.

9b. Describe the district’s plans to use technology to extend or supplement the district’s curriculum with 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).

EPC 5: Student achievement monitoring system (use of data to monitor student progress on curriculum-embedded assessments and modify instruction).

Research shows the ongoing use of data can help schools and districts guide instruction and decision-making, and in turn positively affect student achievement (National Center for Education Accountability, 2002; Petrides & Nodine, 2005). The role of data use in instructional reform efforts is multi-faceted—it provides educators with data to identify problems, assess what interventions are appropriate, and monitor progress toward goals (Killion & Bellamy, 2000). A recent study of California elementary schools underscores this relationship, finding a strong relationship between higher API scores and the extensive use of student assessment data by the district and the principal in an effort to improve instruction and student learning (Williams et al., 2005).

A recent study of the Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) finds a key difference between schools showing high and low API growth is the frequency to which data is used to inform instruction—high growth schools reported using data extensively to guide instruction (Bitter et al., 2005). Data use can inform school improvement efforts on multiple fronts, through ongoing monitoring of student data, formative evaluations assessing program implementation and student progress, and progress evaluations assessing whether benchmarks or other indicators of success are being met (National Science Foundation, 2002). One key to using data to improve student achievement, however, is Lake County Office of Education 31 District Technology Plan 2009-2012

managing data effectively. While schools generate large quantities of data, they are often not packaged in a user-friendly format that translates readily to instructional practice and modification (Massell, 2000). Beyond organizing and managing data, research also underscores the importance of providing professional development to teachers on using data effectively, as well as setting aside time for analyzing and interpreting data to make effective instructional decisions that impact student progress (Bernhardt, 2004; Almanzán, 2005).

Research suggests that lower performing students, especially English learners, can be better supported by taking a “whole child, whole curriculum” approach to academic success (Genesee, 1994). In fact, many experts emphasize the importance of using additional indicators of success beyond test score data, which is what Reeves (2002) calls “holistic accountability.” Darling-Hammond and Ascher (1991) recommend a “comprehensive indicator system” that looks at contextual factors such as dropout rates, student mobility, school demographics, and teacher turnover rates. These types of indicators provide rich insight into the complexities of using student achievement data to improve performance. In sum, using data to examine student achievement and additional student outcome measures plays a critical part in instructional reform efforts, helping administrators and teachers to assess individual student needs and progress, the implementation of instructional programs, and school-wide progress toward the achievement of California standards.

Appendix C – Criteria for EETT Technology Plans (REQUIRED)

In order to be approved, a technology plan needs to have “Adequately Addressed” each of the following criteria:

For corresponding EETT Requirements, see the EETT Technology Plan Requirements (Appendix D).

Include this form (Appendix C) with “Page in District Plan” completed at the end of your technology plan.

1. PLAN DURATION CRITERION

Page in District

Plan

Example of Adequately Addressed Example of Not Adequately Addressed

The plan should guide the district’s use of education technology for the next three to five years. (For a new plan, can include technology plan development in the first year)

Front Cover

The technology plan describes the districts use of education technology for the next three to five years. (For new plan, description of technology plan development in the first year is acceptable).Specific start and end dates are recorded (7/1/xx to 6/30/xx).

The plan is less than three years or more than five years in length.

Plan duration is 2008-11.

2. STAKEHOLDERS CRITERIONCorresponding EETT Requirement(s): 7 and 11 (Appendix D).

Page in District

Plan

Example of Adequately Addressed Not Adequately Addressed


Description of how a variety of stakeholders from within the school district and the community-at-large participated in the planning process.

4 The planning team consisted of representatives who will implement the plan. If a variety of stakeholders did not assist with the development of the plan, a description of why they were not involved is included.

Little evidence is included that shows that the district actively sought participation from a variety of stakeholders.

3. CURRICULUM COMPONENT CRITERIACorresponding EETT Requirement(s): 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, and 12 (Appendix D).

Page in District

Plan


a. Description of teachers’ and students’ current access to technology tools both during the school day and outside of school hours.

5 The plan describes the technology access available in the classrooms, library/media centers, or labs for all students and teachers.

The plan explains technology access in terms of a student-to-computer ratio, but does not explain where access is available, who has access, and when various students and teachers can use the technology.

b. Description of the district’s current use of hardware and software to support teaching and learning.

5-6 The plan describes the typical frequency and type of use (technology skills/information literacy/integrated into the curriculum).

The plan cites district policy regarding use of technology, but provides no information about its actual use.

c. Summary of the district’s curricular goals that are supported by this tech plan.

6 The plan summarizes the district’s curricular goals that are supported by the plan and referenced in district document(s).

The plan does not summarize district curricular goals.

d. List of clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan for using technology to improve teaching and learning by supporting the district

6-7 The plan delineates clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and a clear implementation plan for using technology to support the district’s curriculum goals and academic content standards to improve learning.

The plan suggests how technology will be used, but is not specific enough to know what action needs to be taken to accomplish the goals.


curricular goals.e. List of clear goals,

measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan detailing how and when students will acquire the technology skills and information literacy skills needed to succeed in the classroom and the workplace.

8-9 The plan delineates clear goal(s), measurable objective(s), annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan detailing how and when students will acquire technology skills and information literacy skills.

The plan suggests how students will acquire technology skills, but is not specific enough to determine what action needs to be taken to accomplish the goals.

f. List of goals and an implementation plan that describe how the district will address the appropriate and ethical use of information technology in the classroom so that students and teachers can distinguish lawful from unlawful uses of copyrighted works, including the following topics: the concept and purpose of both copyright and fair use; distinguishing lawful from unlawful downloading and peer-to-peer file sharing; and avoiding plagiarism

9-10 The plan describes or delineates clear goals outlining how students and teachers will learn about the concept, purpose, and significance of the ethical use of information technology including copyright, fair use, plagiarism and the implications of illegal file sharing and/or downloading.

The plan suggests that students and teachers will be educated in the ethical use of the Internet, but is not specific enough to determine what actions will be taken to accomplish the goals.

g. List of goals and an implementation plan that describe how the district will address Internet safety, including how students and teachers will be trained to protect online privacy and avoid online predators.

10 The plan describes or delineates clear goals outlining how students and teachers will be educated about Internet safety.

The plan suggests Internet safety education but is not specific enough to determine what actions will be taken to accomplish the goals of educating students and teachers about internet safety.

h. Description of or goals 11 The plan describes the policy or The plan does not


about the district policy or practices that ensure equitable technology access for all students.

delineates clear goals and measurable objectives about the policy or practices that ensure equitable technology access for all students. The policy or practices clearly support accomplishing the plan’s goals.

describe policies or goals that result in equitable technology access for all students. Suggests how technology will be used, but is not specific enough to know what action needs to be taken to accomplish the goals.

i. List of clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan to use technology to make student record keeping and assessment more efficient and supportive of teachers’ efforts to meet individual student academic needs.

11-12 The plan delineates clear goal(s), measurable objective(s), annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan for using technology to support the district’s student record-keeping and assessment efforts.


j. List of clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan to use technology to improve two-way communication between home and school.

12-13 The plan delineates clear goal(s), measurable objective(s), annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan for using technology to improve two-way communication between home and school.


k. Describe the process that will be used to monitor the Curricular Component (Section 3d-3j) goals, objectives, benchmarks, and planned implementation activities including roles and responsibilities.

13 The monitoring process, roles, and responsibilities are described in sufficient detail.

The monitoring process either is absent, or lacks detail regarding procedures, roles, and responsibilities.

4. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT CRITERIA

Page in District

Plan



Corresponding EETT Requirement(s): 5 and 12 (Appendix D).

a. Summary of the teachers’ and administrators’ current technology proficiency and integration skills and needs for professional development.

13-19 The plan provides a clear summary of the teachers’ and administrators’ current technology proficiency and integration skills and needs for professional development. The findings are summarized in the plan by discrete skills that include CTC Standard 9 and 16 proficiencies.

Description of current level of staff expertise is too general or relates only to a limited segment of the district’s teachers and administrators in the focus areas or does not relate to the focus areas, i.e., only the fourth grade teachers when grades four to eight are the focus grade levels.

b. List of clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan for providing professional development opportunities based on your district needs assessment data (4a) and the Curriculum Component objectives (Sections 3d through 3j) of the plan.

19-21 The plan delineates clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan for providing teachers and administrators with sustained, ongoing professional development necessary to reach the Curriculum Component objectives (sections 3d through 3j) of the plan.

The plan speaks only generally of professional development and is not specific enough to ensure that teachers and administrators will have the necessary training to implement the Curriculum Component.

c. Describe the process that will be used to monitor the Professional Development (Section 4b) goals, objectives, benchmarks, and planned implementation activities including roles and responsibilities.


The monitoring process either is absent, or lacks detail regarding who is responsible and what is expected.

5. INFRASTRUCTURE, HARDWARE, TECHNICAL

Page in District

Example of Adequately Addressed Example of Not Adequately


SUPPORT, AND SOFTWARE COMPONENT CRITERIACorresponding EETT Requirement(s): 6 and 12 (Appendix D).

Plan Addressed

a. Describe the existing hardware, Internet access, electronic learning resources, and technical support already in the district that will be used to support the Curriculum and Professional Development Components (Sections 3 & 4) of the plan.

22-23 The plan clearly summarizes the existing technology hardware, electronic learning resources, networking and telecommunication infrastructure, and technical support to support the implementation of the Curriculum and Professional Development Components.

The inventory of equipment is so general that it is difficult to determine what must be acquired to implement the Curriculum and Professional Development Components. The summary of current technical support is missing or lacks sufficient detail.

b. 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.

23-24 The plan provides a clear summary and list of the technology hardware, electronic learning resources, networking and telecommunications infrastructure, physical plant modifications, and technical support the district will need to support the implementation of the district’s Curriculum and Professional Development Components.

The plan includes a description or list of hardware, infrastructure, and other technology necessary to implement the plan, but there doesn’t seem to be any real relationship between the activities in the Curriculum and Professional Development Components and the listed equipment. Future technical support needs have not been addressed or do not relate to the needs of the Curriculum and Professional Development Components.

c. List of clear annual 24-25 The annual benchmarks and The annual


benchmarks and a timeline for obtaining the hardware, infrastructure, learning resources and technical support required to support the other plan components identified in Section 5b.

timeline are specific and realistic. Teachers and administrators implementing the plan can easily discern what needs to be acquired or repurposed, by whom, and when.

benchmarks and timeline are either absent or so vague that it would be difficult to determine what needs to be acquired or repurposed, by whom, and when.

d. Describe the process that will be used to monitor Section 5b & the annual benchmarks and timeline of activities including roles and responsibilities.


The monitoring process either is absent, or lacks detail regarding who is responsible and what is expected.

6. FUNDING AND BUDGET COMPONENT CRITERIACorresponding EETT Requirement(s): 7 & 13, (Appendix D)

Page in District

Plan

Example of Adequately Addressed

Example of Not Adequately Addressed

a. List established and potential funding sources.

25-26 The plan clearly describes resources that are available or could be obtained to implement the plan.

Resources to implement the plan are not clearly identified or are so general as to be useless.

b. Estimate annual implementation costs for the term of the plan.

26 Cost estimates are reasonable and address the total cost of ownership, including the costs to implement the curricular, professional development, infrastructure, hardware, technical support, and electronic learning resource needs identified in the plan.

Cost estimates are unrealistic, lacking, or are not sufficiently detailed to determine if the total cost of ownership is addressed.

c. Describe the district’s replacement policy for obsolete equipment.

27 Plan recognizes that equipment will need to be replaced and outlines a realistic replacement plan that will support the Curriculum and Professional Development Components.

Replacement policy is either missing or vague. It is not clear that the replacement policy could be implemented.

d. Describe the process 27 The monitoring process, roles, The monitoring


that will be used to monitor Ed Tech funding, implementation costs and new funding opportunities and to adjust budgets as necessary.

and responsibilities are described in sufficient detail.

process either is absent, or lacks detail regarding who is responsible and what is expected.

7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION COMPONENT CRITERIACorresponding EETT Requirement(s): 11 (Appendix D).

Page in District

Plan


a. Describe the process for evaluating the plan’s overall progress and impact on teaching and learning.

27 The plan describes the process for evaluation using the goals and benchmarks of each component as the indicators of success.

No provision for an evaluation is included in the plan. How success is determined is not defined. The evaluation is defined, but the process to conduct the evaluation is missing.

b. Schedule for evaluating the effect of plan implementation.

27 Evaluation timeline is specific and realistic.

The evaluation timeline is not included or indicates an expectation of unrealistic results that does not support the continued implementation of the plan.

c. Describe the process and frequency of communicating evaluation results to tech plan stakeholders.

27 The plan describes the process and frequency of communicating evaluation results to tech plan stakeholders.

The plan does not provide a process for using the monitoring and evaluation results to improve the plan and/or disseminate the findings.

8. EFFECTIVE COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIES WITH ADULT LITERACY PROVIDERS TO

Page in District

Plan


Example of Not Adequately Addressed


MAXIMIZE THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY CRITERIONCorresponding EETT Requirement(s): 11 (Appendix D).

If the district has identified adult literacy providers, describe how the program will be developed in collaboration with them. (If no adult literacy providers are indicated, describe the process used to identify adult literacy providers or potential future outreach efforts.)

28 The plan explains how the program will be developed in collaboration with adult literacy 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 or potential future outreach efforts.

There is no evidence that the plan has been, or will be developed in collaboration with adult literacy service providers, to maximize the use of technology.

9. EFFECTIVE, RESEARCHED-BASED METHODS, STRATEGIES, AND CRITERIACorresponding EETT Requirement(s): 4 and 9 (Appendix D).

Page in District

Plan


Not Adequately Addressed

a. Summarize the relevant research and describe how it supports the plan’s curricular and professional development goals.

28-31 The plan describes the relevant research behind the plan’s design for strategies and/or methods selected.

The description of the research behind the plan’s design for strategies and/or methods selected is unclear or missing.

b. Describe the district’s plans to use technology to extend or supplement the district’s curriculum with rigorous academic courses and curricula, including distance-learning technologies.

31-32 The plan describes the process the district will use to extend or supplement the district’s curriculum with rigorous academic courses and curricula, including distance learning opportunities (particularly in areas that would not otherwise have access to such courses or curricula due to geographical distances or insufficient resources).

There is no plan to use technology to extend or supplement the district’s curriculum offerings.



Documents

This template was developed to assist districts in the ...€¦ · Web viewAppendix J – Technology Plan Contact Information. Education Technology Plan Review System (ETPRS) Contact