Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT
TECHNOLOGY MASTER PLAN

JULY 1, 2011 JUNE 30, 2014
James Q. Hammond, Ed.D. Superintendent
Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... II District Profile ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 District Information .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Vision ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Plan Duration .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 LEARNING AND TEACHING Current assessment ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Goals and implementation plan ................................................................................................................................ 11 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Current assessment ................................................................................................................................................... 24 Goals and implementation plan ................................................................................................................................ 26 Monitoring progress ................................................................................................................................................. 29 INFRASTRUCTURE, HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT Existing infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................. 30 Hardware .................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Software .................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Goals and objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 38 FUNDING AND BUDGET Funding sources ........................................................................................................................................................ 40 Implementation costs ................................................................................................................................................ 42 MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................................... 43 EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION STRATEGIES WITH ADULT LITERACY PROVIDERS Community Based English Tutoring ........................................................................................................................ 44 Collaborative Partners in Adult Literacy .................................................................................................................. 45 RESEARCH BASED METHODS AND STRATEGIES ......................................................................................... 46 References ................................................................................................................................................................ 48 APPENDICES Appendix A: District Network 2008 Configuration and Service Appendix B: Network Infrastructure Purchases Appendix C: District-supported Software Applications 2008 Appendix D: Computer Inventory 2008 Appendix E: National Educational Technology Standards for Students Profiles
Executive Summary
The Ontario-Montclair School District Strategic Plan identifies technology as a key element in guaranteeing a quality education to all students. The purpose of the Technology Master Plan is to articulate a long range strategy for the uses of technology within the district to identify the instructional and management needs for which technology can provide tools to enhance student learning and streamline management tasks. Reaching critical goals is believed to hinge on effectively addressing classroom and instructional needs, improving professional development and infrastructure, and expanding funding to ensure that utility of core systems is properly maintained and supported. This plan does not provide for dramatic purchases of new technologies, but does underscore the need to deliver value from systems already in place through better professional development and support. Significant changes planned for 2011-14 include the following: Learning and Teaching targeted implementation. In 2001 the Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act required (a) statewide accountability systems based on challenging state standards in reading and mathematics, (b) annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and (c) annual progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency. Assessment results must be disaggregated by socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no student group is left behind. Schools and districts that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward proficiency goals are subject to improvement and corrective action measures. In California, Program Improvement (PI) is the formal designation for schools and districts that fail to meet achievement targets for two consecutive years. New priorities have been established to improve our effectiveness by providing quick, consistent and regular reports to teachers on how their students are doing on tests, with all data linked to the student identifier system that makes it easy to follow the progress of each child no matter how many times he or she switches teachers or schools. Using the Zangle student information system and the Illuminate student performance tracking system, a webbased data and assessment management system, we will ensure that classroom teachers and support staff have the tools and training needed. Grant funds and K12 Settlement Vouchers will be targeted to assist site staff in achieving expectations for NCLB reporting and student achievement standards across all grade levels. Technology Support Providers and Information Services Systems Support Technicians will ensure effective levels of training and technical services. Professional Development two new goals. First, all staff will be able to use technology tools effectively for essential communication and administrative functions and the use of technology tools to improve instruction and student learning; and second, that teachers become knowledgeable in online safety best practices for students usage of 21st century tools and be able to educate students on the best practices. Network Infrastructure objectives. We will provide each site with the bandwidth and switching and routing infrastructure required to carry voice, video and data effectively, including interactive video conference connections during the coming three-year cycle; and will provide network access through campus-wide wireless networks where high-densities of portable notebooks and mobile devices can be used online.
II
ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY MASTER PLAN July 1, 2011 June 30, 2014
District Profile
The Ontario-Montclair School District serves 23,000 students from kindergarten through eighth grade, employing 2,400 faculty and support staff. The district has placed a strong focus on access to and use of technology for both students and staff, providing 7,043 computers for instruction, an average student-to-computer ratio of 3.2:1. Enrollments have declined since 2002; while the technology ratio has improved dramatically from 6:1 in 2008. All school sites and district facilities are linked to the district network reaching all classrooms.
District Information
District Name: CDS Code: District Phone Number: Contact Name: Contact Phone Number: Contact E-mail: Alternate Contact Alternate Phone Number Alternate Contact E-mail Ontario-Montclair School District 36-67819 (909) 459-2500 Jeremy Wood, Technology Planning Coordinator (909) 418-6596 jeremy.wood@omsd.k12.ca.us Richard Archibald-Woodward, Technology Coordinator (909) 418-6515 dick.a-w@omsd.k12.ca.us
Statement of Purpose
The Ontario-Montclair School District Strategic Plan identifies technology as a key element in guaranteeing a quality education to all students. The purpose of the Technology Master Plan is to articulate a long range strategy for the uses of technology within the district to identify the instructional and management needs for which technology can provide tools to enhance student learning and streamline management tasks. This plan was written with the understanding that classroom instruction and student learning are at the heart of all we do and must be the central focus, but they are not our only considerations. It evaluates (1) the districts infrastructure and support needs, (2) the financial requirements and fiscal impact of technology, and (3) processes for monitoring the implementation of this plan. For most classroom teachers the essence of education has been instruction something a teacher does to a student. Since adopting Frederick Taylors industrial management perspective during the 1920s, educators have emphasized the need for foundational textbooks in core subjects and standardized instructional delivery, replacing rule-of-thumb work methods with best practices established through scientific study. Teachers own the learning.
1
But technology is dramatically changing our concepts of education, of the roles of teacher and student, and is changing them at a pace seemingly beyond our ability to grasp. Lewis J. Perelman argued in Schools Out (1992) that we are migrating to genuine learning: more, better, faster, and cheaper: . . . the essence of the coming integrated, universal, multimedia, digital network is discovery the empowerment of human minds to learn spontaneously, without coercion, both independently and cooperatively. The focus is on learning as an action that is done by, not done to, the actor. This shift toward a culture of learning that values the individual as a self-directed agent, someone who doesnt need a manager to move from point a to b, poses two challenges to OMSD: first, recognizing that a gap exists between what we currently think of as good education in our classrooms and what good education can and will be in those very same classrooms with the benefit of appropriate, supported technologies; and second, committing ourselves and our resources to closing that gap in a responsible, affordable, prioritized fashion. The Technology Master Plan supports the district's educational mission in its initiative to integrate current technology supporting instruction, enhancing students educational opportunities, and improving administrative efficiency. An essential goal of all adopted technology systems is simplification saving time: as students prepare for the world of lifelong learning and of work, as instructors teach and plan, as administrators and support staff strive to meet new challenges more effectively, and as the community and employers look for better information about students or school's progress.
Millions of dollars have been invested during the past decade implementing technology into both the curriculum and management of instruction. Fundamental changes have been effected during the past four years in curriculum and instruction, emphasizing systematic evaluation of student learning, staff communication, and information storage and retrieval. Federal e-rate subsidies and local funds have made it possible to bring the world inside the four walls of the classroom via the data/voice/video infrastructure commonly called the Internet or the Web. Now the district must leverage that investment and use the technology to help shift the culture of teaching and learning to meet the demands and expectations of the 21st century world so our students will have the knowledge and tools to thrive in their world.
VISION Reemphasis on Information Literate Students

Technology is a necessary tool to integrate education and community for all students. The U. S. Department of Education (National Education Technology Plan 2010) calls for a model of learning powered by technology, with goals and recommendations in five essential areas: Learning: Bring state-of-the-art technology into learning to enable, motivate and inspire all students to achieve. Assessment: Technology-based assessments can provide data to drive decisions on the basis of what is best for each and every student.
2
Teaching: Use technology to build the capacity of educators by enabling a shift to a model of connected teaching where teams of connected educators replace solo practitioners and educators have access to resources that help them act on the insights the data provide. Infrastructure: People, processes, learning resources, policies, and sustainable models for continuous improvement in addition to broadband connectivity, servers, software, management systems, and administration tools are necessary for a comprehensive infrastructure for learning that provides every student and educator with the resources they need when and where they are needed.
Productivity: Leverage technology to plan, manage, monitor, and report on the implementation of personalized learning and sure that students are making appropriate progress through our K-8 system As Alan November observed (2006), ownership of learning must shift from the teacher to the student. Every person should be equipped with the tools needed to deal effectively with the information age, becoming information and media literate. Information Literacy is defined as the ability to access, evaluate and use information from a variety of sources (Library Skills to Information Literacy a handbook for the 21st century, 1997). An information literate person is a competent reader who (a) recognizes that accurate and complete information is the basis for intelligent decision making, (b) formulates questions based on information needs, (c) develops successful search strategies, and (d) accesses technology-based sources of information. An information literate person evaluates information and establishes viability of the source, recognizes point of view and opinion versus factual knowledge, rejects inaccurate and misleading information, creates new information to replace inaccurate or missing information as needed (Doyle, 1992). National information literacy standards can be found in Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (1998). The demands facing learners of the early twenty-first century have extended beyond the basic skills of reading, writing and mathematics (SCANS Report, 2000). Teaching students how to read about, watch, interpret, understand and analyze media-delivered data is of vital importance and is inextricably linked to technological literacy. Today, technology affects virtually every aspect of our lives, from enabling citizens to perform routine tasks to requiring them to be able to make responsible, informed decisions that affect individuals, society and the environment. Citizens of today must have a basic understanding of how technology affects their world and how they coexist with technology. Attaining technological literacy is as fundamentally important to students as developing knowledge and abilities in core subject areas. Students need and deserve the opportunity to attain technological literacy through the educational process (Dugger, et al, 2003). The Milken Family Foundation study (Schacter, 1999), The Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement: What the Most Current Research Has to Say, found that children with consistent exposure to technology, clear objectives and focused use could be expected to show improvement. Anticipated benefits include: 1. improvements in student assessment performance; 2. increasing numbers of students attaining grade level content standards;
3
3. a positive and realistic change in student attitudes toward technology; 4. improvements in student technology use and information literacy skills; 5. improved student behavior; and improved student attitudes toward school. A paradox has developed. While many school administrators and teachers realize that disadvantaged students have the most to lose if technology is not integrated into schools, the instructional program provided in schools serving low-income pupils has become distinctly different from schools in affluent communities. Children's Partnership (Lazarus, et al, 2005) reported that 75 percent of children ages 7 to17 from households earning more than $75,000 per year reported using a home computer to complete school assignments, more than double the percentage in low income households. More troubling, the study reported the same pattern in school, where 36 percent of lower-income children ages 7 to 17 use the Internet at school compared with 63 percent of children from higher-income households. The problem is in expectations for student use, not school funding. Many teachers view computer use as a frill or intrusion into the instructional time needed to bring children to proficiency on core standards. "My sense is that more and more educators believe [technology] needs to be infused in everything they're doing with students and in the classroom. It probably also argues for paying more attention to make sure the kids who don't have computers at home, or whose parents may not be experienced enough with computers to support them, are getting the support they need at school" (Lazarus, 2005). The four key trends in the 2010 Horizon Report (2010) prepared by EDUCAUSE and The New Media Consortium identified as key drivers in technology adoption in education for the next five years all articulate the importance of having a high-capacity network infrastructure in place to provide access to cloud services, anytime-anywhere access to files and applications and the access, sharing and creating of resources and collaborative relationships on the Internet. High-bandwidth internal and external network connections, high-availability servers/services and adequate disaster recovery systems in place are requirements of providing the level access necessary for connected, 21st century learning environments.
1. PLAN DURATION
The Ontario-Montclair School Districts (OMSD) Technology Master Plan was designed and reviewed by a broadly representative group from the district and community to guide all aspects of technology development and implementation over the coming three-year period from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2014. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated to overcome barriers, better align curriculum, improve staff development and infrastructure, and reconsider necessary funding allocations.
2. STAKEHOLDERS
The committee members represent various constituent groups, who will be involved in implementation of the plan, including: district and site administrators, teachers and classified staff, as well as community representatives. Priorities are reflected for the major components of the plan: Curriculum, Professional Development, Infrastructure including hardware, software and technical support, Funding/Budget, Evaluation Criteria, and Collaborative Strategies with Adult Literacy Providers. The plan describes the relevant research behind the plans design for strategies selected, including references to research literature that supports how the instructional models improve student achievement. The plan will be submitted to the OMSD Board of Trustees for adoption upon approval by the California Department of Education. Analyses have been based on interviews, available policies and plans, and a continuing, extensive review of the literature, surveys of other school districts, and identified best practices.
Members of the Technology Master Plan Work Group

Cindi Aguirre, Assistant Principal Carol Arrington, California School Employees Association Richard Archibald-Woodward, Technology Coordinator Don Bellows, Network Engineer Gorman Bentley, Principal Don Bertucci, Chaffey Joint Union High School District Sandra Brucker, Program Facilitator Cyndy Byrd, Assistant Superintendent Veronica Castaneda, Principal Chris Catuara, Technology Support Provider William Corrette, Principal Michael Curley, Economic Development, City of Ontario Sultana Dixon, Principal Leila Dodge, Assessment Coordinator Elliott Ellsworth, Information Technology, City of Ontario Eddie Franco, Assessment Coordinator Lisa Gettler, Principal James Q. Hammond, EdD, Superintendent Richard Hurtado, IS Systems Support Tech Stella Kemp, Director II, Science, Technology and Math Mike Lathrop, Assessment Coordinator Bruce Lauria, Principal Greg Legutki, Projects Specialist California Technology Assistance Project (Region 10) Jon Lewis, Network Engineer Tammy Lipschultz, Principal
5
Ellen Lugo, Director II, Innovations Rick McClure, Ontario-Montclair Teachers Association Craig Misso, Operations Administrator Lourdes Patterson, Assessment Coordinator Stacy Pechan, Teacher Ellen Ransons, Principal Ben Snow, Teacher Kris Tabler, Spanish Trails Girl Scouts Scott Turnbull, Director II, Standards & Assessment John Weedston, Director, Information Services Bruce Wellenkamp, Assessment Coordinator Karla Wells, Executive Director, Learning and Teaching Dale Wishner, Information Technology, City of Ontario Jeremy Wood, Technology Planning Coordinator Jack Young, Principal
3. LEARNING AND TEACHING

The Technology Master Plan establishes goals, objectives and benchmarks for the use of technology to meet the curricular goals and academic standards established by the district and State of California. Staff development, infrastructure, technical support, and funding are aligned to ensure efforts and resources will be focused to support academic success for all students.
3a. Teachers and students current access to technology tools during and outside of school hours.
The pattern of technology usage in Ontario-Montclair mirrors data from the past decade reported by Children's Partnership (Lazarus, et al, 2005). Seventy-seven percent of children ages 7 to17 from households earning more than $75,000 per year reported using a home computer to complete school assignments, whereas only 29 percent of children from households earning less than $15,000 use a home computer for school work. Similarly, low-income parents use e-mail to communicate with teachers only one-third as often as parents in higher-income households. The study found that only 36 percent of lower-income children ages 7 to 17 use the Internet at school, even though 100 percent of public schools have Internet connections with 95 percent of those connections being broadband. Sixty-three percent of the children from higher-income households use the Internet at school. "My sense is that more and more educators believe [technology] needs to be infused in everything they're doing with students and in the classroom. It probably also argues for paying more attention to make sure the kids who don't have computers at home, or whose parents may not be experienced enough with computers to support them, are getting the support they need at school" (Lazarus, 2005). Students in the Ontario-Montclair School District do not all have easy or equitable access to computers and other technologies. Depending on the school, the average number of students expected to share access to a computer ranges from 3 to 20+. In addition, the quantity and capability of computers and other key technology tools needed to support teaching and learning vary widely throughout the district. Half of the computers used for instruction are at least 2 years old, reaching their end of life. At all schools, each classroom has at least one or two desktop computers, with some classrooms having five or six. Although teachers have computer access throughout the work day, the ratio of PCs to pupils reaches the expected norm of 1:6 (middle schools) or 1:7 (elementary schools) at nearly all of the sites. The other schools have purchased fewer computers than necessary to provide the expected value. (The most recent inventory detailing hardware installations at each school is presented in Appendix D.) Scattering a small number of computers into classrooms provides nearly no benefit to students, since neither core lessons nor appropriate follow-up practice can be structured in a way that provides each child with enough time to complete meaningful work. The District made implemented DataDirector student assessment management system in 2008 to provide teachers with granular reporting on student assessment data. The detailed level of reporting has allowed teachers to differentiate instruction and provide necessary student intervention programs targeting the areas students are most in need. Illuminate is being implemented to replace DataDirector during the 2011-2012 school year. Illuminate has the same reporting features of DataDirector but with increased features such as making the scanning of assessments available to classroom teachers and providing more reporting options on CST and
6
benchmark data, freeing up support personnel to provide other services to the teachers and students. Sample breakdown of 2009-2010 Math CST data from Illuminate
Strides have been made at the district-level to decrease the student to computer ratio through the purchase of over 2,000 mobile thin clients use school modernization funds and school improvement grants. The portability of mobile computers allow labs to travel to the students, letting the learning take place in the same environment students use on a daily basis and are most comfortable. Distribution of Computers Less than 4 Years Old Used for Instructional Purposes School Arroyo Berlyn Bon View Buena Vista Central Corona Del Norte Edison El Camino Elderberry Euclid Hawthorne Haynes Howard Kingsley Lehigh Lincoln Mariposa Mission Monte Vista Montera Moreno Ramona Sultana Vineyard Classroom 125 181 195 104 100 293 171 102 111 111 118 200 104 143 159 360 125 150 300 84 216 101 84 432 248
7
Lab 0 36 0 44 0 0 0 0 12 33 5 24 0 16 20 132 0 0 120 32 0 60 0 34 32
Library/Media Center 30 5 0 1 62 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 15 3 0
0
0 25 0 0 15 2 2 19
Vista Grande De Anza Oaks Serrano Vernon Vina Danks Wiltsey
123 218 217 193 157 344 249
81 0 32 45 30 134 40
0 3 60 0 6 6 2
Half of the districts schools have concentrated some computers in learning labs; through a district initiative, all have purchased mobile carts with wireless notebook computers; some have both a lab and a significant numbers of classroom computers. Carts are checked out to teachers to support students projects. Lab-based participation is commonly handled on a periodic classroom rotation basis. Many classrooms are equipped with a 27" inch or smaller television and a VCR; very few have a DVD player and most have an LCD projector. Laser printers have replaced inefficient ink-jet printers, drastically reducing operating/supply costs in nearly all classrooms. Adoption of interactive white boards has proceeded dramatically during the past three years as teachers recognized the impact on student engagement. Interactive whiteboards are now installed in nearly all district classrooms. High speed network connections, fast enough to sustain streaming instructional video and audio content, link nearly all computers. Campus switching equipment has been replaced/upgraded at 15 schools during the past two years, keeping to a five-year replacement cycle. A growing number of schools have begun to introduce other instructional technologies such as document cameras and student response systems into classrooms for teacher and student use. Despite earlier success with AlphaSmart keyboards for teaching keyboard familiarity and enabling students to type compositions at their desks and then transmit the text to a computer for further editing, use in the past four years had decreased markedly. While 27 schools provided students with access to computers outside of the normal school day in 2007, in 2010 only 19 schools still provided access outside of the instructional day. Although computers in classrooms, libraries and computer labs might be available at some schools, the After School Education and Safety (ASES) Program implemented during 2007 has emphasized recreational activities, rather than academic ones, during its initial phase. Before and After School Computer Access School Arroyo Berlyn Bon View Buena Vista Central Corona Del Norte Edison El Camino Elderberry Before School No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes
8
After School No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes
Other No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes
Euclid Hawthorne Haynes Howard Kingsley Lehigh Lincoln Mariposa Mission Monte Vista Montera Moreno Ramona Sultana Vineyard Vista Grande De Anza Oaks Serrano Vernon Vina Danks Wiltsey
No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No
No No No Yes Yes, sometimes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
No Yes No Yes Yes No

No
No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
All teachers have access to computers in their classrooms before, during and after school. Additionally, all teachers have been provided with a notebook computer to use both on and off campus.
3b. Current use of hardware and software to support teaching and learning.
Under the previous OMSD Technology Master Plan, all students were expected to have access to a variety of technology tools and resources, and technology applications to support curriculum and instruction for all grade levels were expected to be developed by the district Curriculum Teams. These objectives were not accomplished. While all school computers have Microsoft Office installed to provide basic productivity applications for staff and students, other digital learning resources are not distributed equitably across the district. This is due mostly to local school budgetary limitations and decisions; most technology purchases, other than network infrastructure, are made by individual school leaders to satisfy site priorities. Teacher use. In the 2007-08 EdTechProfile, half of the districts teachers agreed with the statement that they used a variety of technological resources available to me, but only nine percent reported that My students and I regularly use these resources. School expenditures and most professional training have been directed toward the seven outcomes listed in the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing program standard 16 (2002), Using Technology to Support Student Learning. The objectives emphasize teacher uses and teacher demonstrates. Most OMSD teachers responded to the recent survey with I know little or nothing or I am familiar with, rather than I use or I prepare my students. The value clarified through these
9
data is the belief that students will not learn if teachers do not maintain control of their classroom. Ownership belongs to the teacher. The goals of transforming student learning, of preparing students to read about, watch, interpret, understand and analyze media-delivered data (SCANS Report, 2000) have eluded us. This constraint to quality teaching continues to keep most OMSD students from lessons targeting proficiency levels beyond basic. Almost no instructional time is allocated for projects requiring students to (a) recognize that accurate and complete information is the basis for intelligent decision making, (b) formulate questions based on information needs, (c) develop successful search strategies, and (d) access technology-based sources of information. Despite the emphasis seen in Californias math standards adopted a decade back, most OMSD teachers remain unfamiliar with Excel, and do not lead students in using this application to organize, manipulate or chart numeric information. Only six percent of respondents in 2008 expected students to identify, locate and select appropriate print, electronic and online resources and to evaluate the quality of the information they find. Fewer yet agreed that using technology at school was essential for my students as they work to solve real-life problem. Most continue to hold a transmission model of teaching and learning, in which students are passive (Meacham, 2006). Student use. Student assignments in most classrooms do not regularly require the use of technology or technology-based resources. Only 27 percent of teachers reported that students used computers at least weekly for reinforcement or practice, 14 percent for word processing, and nearly 60 percent said students used them less than monthly or never. In the California School Technology Survey fewer than half of students were described as ever using computer applications as part of their school learning experiences in support of meeting state standards. Usage patterns reported for elementary students are echoed at the middle schools where basic applications including word processing, creating reports or projects, solving problems and/or analyzing data, and graphically presenting materials are not yet a consistent part of most students instructional experience. This is due to a combination of factors, including the limited expectation for student technology use at the school level, teacher apprehensions based on a lack of comfort and proficiency with technology tools, and the districts instructional expectation that very strongly emphasizes direct instruction above all other instructional models. Direct observation and data collected from the California School Technology Survey and EdTechProfile assessment indicate the regular use of technology to support daily instruction has increased in classrooms. Facilities. The learning environment has been significantly upgraded in nearly all of the districts classrooms, where technologies such as video projectors, interactive whiteboards and document cameras, are integrated into teachers instruction. Teachers who use these tools are creating rigorous, engaging, interactive lessons that support the adopted curriculum. A side benefit to this has been the development of collaborative relationships among the teachers, not only within schools, but increasingly between teachers at different schools. During 2007-08 the district implemented MyOMSD as a web-accessible document library, including both professional materials and resources provided by textbook publishers. Hundreds of district users download content each month from MyOMSD, with usage heavily skewed toward elementary curriculum materials. MyOMSD currently houses over 12,000 prebuilt lessons aligned to state content standards, most of which were created by OMSD staff. However, many teachers still express some reluctance to upload lessons, citing concerns related to (a) the
10
suitability of their work for more general use, and (b) for making a work product that represents their substantial investment publicly available as a free commodity. The experiences are encouraging teachers to look more seriously for a wider variety of technology based resources to support student learning beyond the confines of the textbook covers and the school walls. One such resource adopted by two-thirds of the districts schools is the United Streaming video service from Discovery Learning that enables teachers integrate high quality, curriculum aligned video segments into their instructional delivery. Focus. Despite these successes, identifying a core body of acceptable, high quality instructional resources for use in classrooms across the district remains a challenge. Funding is part of the issue, but it certainly is not the whole story. A recent inventory of software and applications showed that the typical PC used by students had more than 25 titles installed with no clear plan at the site for using most of these toward reaching specific instructional priorities. Examples of programs used to support and enhance teaching and learning include the following:
Basic Productivity Assessment Applications Learning Applications Multimedia Development and Presentation Applications Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, Publisher, Outlook) Illuminate and benchmark assessments for reading/language arts and math used regularly by all teachers Online Assessment of Reading Skills (OARS) used by primary teachers Accelerated Math, Accelerated Reader used by 18 schools Scholastic Reading Counts, Scholastic Phonics Inventory used by most teachers in grades 4-8 Read 180 (all sites), MathKeys, Lexia, Rosetta Stone used by 14 schools Pinnacle Studio, Adobe Premiere used by 5 schools
Follow through. One of the big challenges with these and any other resources acquired to improve student learning is the issue of providing timely and effective support and training (See sections 4 and 5). Two initiatives have been put into place recently that will help ensure technology resources acquired or licensed in the future are of the quality expected to effectively meet academic needs and can be reasonably supported. 1. All new hardware and software intended to be used to support instruction are reviewed by the Instructional Technology Standards Committee and, when deemed necessary, piloted by one or more schools before it is accepted for broad use. The goal is to expand a list of standard resources schools can purchase with the anticipation they are effective, reliable and can be supported by the district. Schools and individual employees can bring their proposals to the committee with the promise of quick action 2. A dedicated IS Helpdesk Technician is used to provide real-time support when possible and prioritize all technology incidents and escalate as needed. The full-time Helpdesk Technician provides a more streamlined approach to addressing support needs and frees up System Support Technicians to be in the field resolving incidents.
3c. Summary of the district curricular goals and academic content standards
The strategic planning process followed by the Ontario-Montclair School District develops the framework through which the district strives to create a learning environment where all students
11
have the opportunity to achieve and experience success. The goals and objectives provide a roadmap for all the strategies that follow. This technology plan is aligned with the districts Strategic Plan (http://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/superintendent/Pages/StrategicPlan.aspx), the California curricular goals and academic content standards for student achievement, and our Local Educational Agency (LEA) Plan, created by the district School Leadership Team, which runs through June 30, 2013. The identified performance goals from these guiding documents are: a. All students will reach high standards, at a minimum, attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics, by 2013-14. (LEA Plan Performance Goals #1) b. All students will be proficient or advanced on essential California standards for language arts and math as measured by district and State assessments.(OMSD Strategic Plan) c. All English Language Learners will demonstrate no less than one level of growth annually in English Language proficiency as measured by district and State assessments. (OMSD Strategic Plan) d. All limited-English-proficient students will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics. (LEA Plan Performance Goals #2) e. All students will be proficient or advanced on California content standards in science and social studies as measured by State assessments. (OMSD Strategic Plan) f. By 2005-06, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers. (LEA Plan Performance Goal #3) g. All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning. (LEA Plan Performance Goal #4) h. All students will graduate from high school. (LEA Plan Performance Goal #5) The goals and objectives listed in the following sections are all directed toward meeting these overriding goals. They highlight technology objectives and benchmarks relevant to the district curriculum and strategic plan goals over the three year life of this plan. The benchmarks related to both curriculum and technology will be the focus of the annual review and revision of the plan.
3d. Goals and implementation plan for using technology to improve teaching and learning by supporting the district curricular goals and academic content standards
The primary purposes of technology at school should be: (1) to augment the attainment of essential grade level standards (Reeves, 2002), and (2) to extend students reach beyond minimal proficiencies (Eisenberg, 2005), ensuring access to rigorous academic courses and curricula. The Ontario-Montclair School District has a comprehensive district curriculum guide (http://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/lss/) based upon California State Standards. The core curriculum focus areas are English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. It is expected that students who master the adopted curriculum will meet the California standards. Numerous interventions and measures are taken to assist the students in meeting the standards. Additionally, as a K-8 district, we must maintain articulation with the Chaffey Joint Union High School District to ensure we prepare our students with the foundational knowledge and skills needed to pass the California High School Exit Exam and graduate on schedule.
12
The district faces formidable challenges as we strive to move all students to attainment of the standards. In 2000-2001 12 of 29 schools in OMSD did not meet their established growth targets. Accountability standards have been shifted by the Federal NCLB requirements for demonstrating that students are making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). In 2010 28 of 30 sites reporting did not meet all Phase I and Phase II AYP criteria.. This pattern places pressure, and a number of restrictions, on the districts schools to improve student learning and achievement. Technology tools infused thoughtfully and judiciously can help the district meet its goals listed above for students. Teachers at all district schools use technology to assess student achievement, using: (a) Santa Clara Office of Education (SCOE) tests tracked with the Online Assessment of Reading Achievement (OARS) in kindergarten classrooms, (b) benchmark tests integrated with OMSDs student performance tracking system, (c) Spanish language standardized tests, (d) a formal writing sample, as well as (e) classroom assessments. Based on teacher observation, software programs such as Read 180, Accelerated Reader, Reading Counts and Accelerated Math have contributed positively to the improvement of test scores and improved APIs. Recommendations regarding which software programs are purchased to address student needs are based on analysis of data generated in the curricular areas targeted for improvement, as well as site decisions that grow out of individual school-wide plans. State and Federal funds are used to purchase computers and software to address the specific, identified learning needs of students. While this plan does not provide for dramatic purchases of new technologies, it does underscore the need to deliver value from systems already in place through better use, professional development and support. We recognize the urgent priority attending students attainment of essential grade level standards. Students use of technology must not be limited to simple skill practice and assessment activities. Students must be challenged to use critical thinking skills to analyze information independently, solve problems and make informed decisions using appropriate technological tools. The identified goals, objectives and benchmarks listed below are intended to support the districts curriculum goals and academic content standards to improve learning. In addition, it aims to move all students toward two important outcomes: a. owning the learning shifting toward a culture of learning that values the individual as a selfdirected agent, and b. securing both the foundational skills and regular access to technology applications that support the organized data collection, analysis, reporting, and decision making that will affect them as educated individuals and members of society. Reaching the desired outcomes will require expanded access to resources and rigorous academic curriculum through online learning, collaborative projects, distance education or virtual field trips from school, and learning outside the traditional school day. This plan requires a strong technology infrastructure, broader deployment of hardware and application software, and improving teachers skills to ensure that our students successfully bridge the divide that has too often limited economic and political participation by their parents. It underscores the priority described by Jack Meacham putting teachers time, effort, and creativity: . . . into promoting the active engagement, thinking, questioning, and learning of my students. Once we move beyond a transmission model of teaching and learning, in which students are passive, to a constructivist model of liberal education, in which students are actively engaged, curious, reflective, and
13
thinking critically, the best learning technology becomes the posing of a problem, issue, or question for the students (Meacham, 2006) To gain expected proficiency at each grade level, students must have regular access and the commitment of the teaching community to incorporate technology skills into the overall curriculum. To help effect this outcome the district expects to purchase mobile sets of AlphaSmart units for elementary grade students, and laptop carts to ensure that middle school students have the instructional time and resources needed to reach beyond minimal skills. Following the model used at Tech Six Schools, top level support from Technology Support Providers and Information Services Systems Support Technicians ensured effective levels of training and support services with the expectation that teachers will become more self-sufficient over the subsequent years, and will develop collaborative relationships between schools. Since then, the state budget has led to a reduction in personnel leaving only one Technology Support Provider available to support the curricular side of the technology as a core responsibility. Research-based technology will guide instruction to the critical standards needed at that site. Grant funds and K-12 Vouchers will be targeted to assist them in achieving standards for using technology across all grade levels. GOAL 3D: Students and teachers will use technology tools to improve achievement.
Objective 3D.1: By the end of June 2014, middle school students will use technology to complete a project during each trimester term in selected core content areas including Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science, & Social Studies that demonstrates mastery of essential standards. Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, 50% of middle school students will use technology tools to create products and presentations that demonstrate mastery of essential standards for at least one core content area. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, 75% of middle school students will use technology tools to create products and presentations that demonstrate mastery of essential standards for at least one core content area during each trimester. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, 90% of middle school students will use technology tools to create products and presentations that demonstrate mastery of essential standards for at least one core content area during each trimester. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation Analysis of standardized & local assessment results Ongoing District & site administrators Classroom observations, teacher records and student Ongoing Teachers, Site products Administrators, Analysis of collaborative activity by teachers using the Quarterly Tech Planning SharePoint collaboration space Coordinator, ITSC Committee EdTechProfile teacher and student evaluations Annual Teachers, Tech Coordinator, Site Administrators Objective 3D.2: By the end of June 2014, elementary students will use technology to develop keyboard familiarity and writing skills. Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, 20% of elementary grade students will use mobile computing devices to develop keyboard familiarity and writing skills. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, 40% of elementary grade students will use mobile computing devices to develop keyboard familiarity and writing skills. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, 50% of elementary grade students will use mobile computing devices to develop keyboard familiarity and writing skills. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation Analysis of standardized & local assessment results Ongoing District & site administrators Classroom observations, teacher records and student Ongoing Teachers, Site 14
products Analysis of collaborative activity by teachers using the SharePoint collaboration space
Administrators Quarterly Tech Planning Coordinator, ITSC Committee EdTechProfile teacher and student evaluations Annual Teachers, Tech Coordinator, Site Administrators Objective 3D.3: By the end of June 2014, all OMSD teachers will integrate technology into direct instruction to improve student understanding and mastery of essential standards. Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, 60% of teachers will effectively use two or more available audio/visualization tools such as presentation software, voice reinforcement systems, simulation software, video streaming resources, online resources that provide models and animations, concept mapping software, to improve direct instruction. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, 75% of teachers will effectively use two or more available audio/visualization tools to improve direct instruction. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, 100% of teachers will effectively use two or more available audio/visualization tools to improve direct instruction. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation Classroom observations, feedback from site administrators Quarterly Tech Coordinator, Tech Planning Coordinator, site administrators Annual EdTechProfile data will be analyzed for progress Annually Tech Coordinator, Tech Planning Coordinator, site administrators Student achievement data from standardized testing will be Annually IS Director, Tech analyzed for impact on student achievement Planning Coordinator, Tech Coordinator Action Step Completion Date Person Responsible 1. 50% of middle school students in core classes will have June 2012 Site administrators & access to a laptop computer cart for defined projects Tech Coordinator each trimester. 2. 60% of middle school students in core classes will have June 2013 Site administrators & access to a laptop computer cart for defined projects Tech Coordinator each trimester. 3. 70% of middle school students in core classes will have June 2014 Site administrators & access to a laptop computer cart for defined projects Tech Coordinator each trimester. 4. Provide ongoing training on the effective use of Ongoing Tech Coordinator, Tech presentation hardware & software to classroom Mentors teachers. 5. Provide training on effective use of video to increase Ongoing Tech Coordinator, Tech student engagement and understanding for teachers and Mentors administrators 6. Model use of presentation, simulation and concept Each trimester Tech Coordinator, Tech mapping software in professional development settings Mentor, Director II of throughout the district PD 7. Use the OMSD SharePoint collaboration space to assist Ongoing Tech Planning teachers to share effective lessons, presentations and Coordinator, Tech resources Coordinator, Tech Mentors 8. Middle school students will use standard productivity Each trimester 2012-14 Teachers, Site software to complete project assignments (e.g., MS Administrators, Word for documents, MS Excel for data analysis and Technology graphing, MS PowerPoint for presentations) Coordinator 9. Students and teachers will use streaming video and Each trimester 2012-14 Teachers, Site 15
10.
other multimedia resources for instruction, development of projects and presentations Teachers and students will collaborate on projects using online collaboration spaces
Administrators Each trimester 20122014 Teachers, Tech Planning Coordinator, Tech Mentors
3e. Goals to ensure students will acquire technology and information literacy skills needed to succeed in the classroom and the workplace.
To gain expected proficiency at each grade level, students must have regular access and the commitment of the teaching community to incorporate technology skills into the overall curriculum. Although a technology scope and sequence was developed and included in prior versions of district technology plans, it is evident that schools are not using the guide to implement sequenced teaching of technology skills or to help integrate technology into student lessons. Yet in todays world it is essential that all students acquire the technology and thinking skills necessary to support achievement of the academic standards and ultimately success in a digitally mediated world, an effort that will require a lifetime of learning and the integration of skills with the core curriculum. To address the current realities of technology, the district will implement the National Education Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) Profiles as our guiding scope and sequence for our students (see Appendix E). The NET-S Profiles provide examples of experiences with technology and digital resources that will engage students in developmentally appropriate activities designed to foster both the technological skills and habits of thinking necessary to develop technologically literate, problem solving citizens. It will be the responsibility of the Technology Support Providers and Instructional Coaches, who will model lessons and provide classroom support, to guide teachers in the ways to integrate those skills and concepts into their teaching. Because we live in a constantly changing environment in which both technology and student learning needs evolve, the NETS-S Profiles can provide only the base for student learning activities. The activities in which students engage to meet the NETS-S standards necessarily will change over time as technological capabilities and teacher proficiencies and confidence levels expand.
GOAL 3E.1: All OMSD students will show evidence of grade level appropriate technology use in support of mastering essential standards. Objective 3E.1: By June 2014 all students will master the grade appropriate skills and habits of thinking delineated in the Technology Scope and Sequence based on the NETS-S Profiles. Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, the district will adopt the NETS-S Profiles as the OMSD Technology Skills Scope and Sequence. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, teachers in all middle schools will regularly create lessons in which students must utilize grade appropriate technology to accomplish the learning objectives. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, all students will use technology in hands-on, standards based learning activities to master the grade appropriate technology skills in the revised Technology Scope and Sequence. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation NETS-S Profile Checklist June 2012 Tech Coordinator, site administrators Classroom observations, teacher feedback & student work Ongoing Site administrators, samples Tech Coordinator, Tech Mentors Teacher evaluations of student technology skills Annually Tech Coordinator, site (EdTechProfile) administrators Student self-evaluation (student EdTechProfile survey or Annually Tech Coordinator, site 16
other instrument to be determined) Action Step 1. Adopt NETS-S Profiles as the OMSD Technology Scope & Sequence 2. Provide teacher training on effectively integrating technology skills instruction within the core curriculum 3. Increase student access to district standard productivity and communication software tools 4. Embed the use of word processing tools throughout the writing process 5. Embed the use of data collection and analysis tools in math and science instruction 6. Provide opportunities for students to use multimedia tools to communicate understanding of content
Completion Date June 2012 June 2013 June 2012/ongoing June 2012/ongoing June 2012/ongoing June 2014/ongoing
administrators Person Responsible Tech Coordinator Tech Coordinator IS Director, Tech Coordinator Teachers Teachers Teachers
GOAL 3E.2: All OMSD students will develop grade appropriate information literacy skills necessary to master content standards in all cored curricular areas. Objective 3E.2.1: Students will use technology to access, evaluate, retrieve and organize information from a variety of sources in a grade appropriate manner. Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, an Information Literacy Team will locate and acquire or create information literacy resources and correlate it with the core curriculum for all grade levels. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, 50% of students will use grade appropriate activities and technology tools to access, evaluate, retrieve and organize information from a variety of sources appropriate to specific grade appropriate learning tasks. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, 70% of students will use grade appropriate activities and technology tools to access, evaluate, retrieve and organize information from a variety of sources appropriate to specific grade appropriate learning tasks. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation Published OMSD Information Literacy Resource Guide June 2012 Tech Coordinator, Exec Dir L&T Teacher evaluations of student information literacy Annually Tech Coordinator, site (EdTechProfile or other instrument to be determined) administrators Student self-evaluation (student EdTechProfile or other Annually Tech Coordinator, site instrument to be determined) administrators Completion Date Person Responsible Action Step 1. Provide teachers and library/media aides with June 2012/ongoing Executive Director information literacy connections to content standards L&T, Technology Coordinator 2. Provide training for teachers and library/media aides on June 2012/ongoing Executive Director integrating information literacy into standard based L&T, Technology instruction Coordinator 3. Teachers will use resources provided by the June 2014 Tech Coordinator, Tech Information Literacy Team to instruct students on Mentors evaluating data sources and the data itself 4. Provide students with project-based lessons that include June 2013 Tech Coordinator, Tech appropriate practice with collecting, organizing, and Mentors analyzing information, developing communication and collaboration skills. 5. Ensure students properly cite sources when creating June 2013/ongoing 6-8 Teachers electronic products and communications 6. Provide teachers and library/media aides with online June 2012 Tech Coordinator, Tech copyright and citation resources Planning Coordinator
17
3f.
Goals and implementation plan to ensure students will learn the appropriate and ethical uses of information technology.
Issues of ethics are commonly raised in elementary school in the context of right and wrong, of good and evil in human conduct. As children mature, behavior can be examined in a normative frame as the choices people make and the values reflected in those choices (Brockett and Heimstra, 2004). School technology plans are now specifically required to educate pupils and teachers on five topics, (1) the appropriate and ethical use of information technology in the classroom, (2) Internet safety, (3) avoiding plagiarism, (4) the significance of a copyright, and (5) the implications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing [EC 51871.5]. Additionally, online safety is expressly targeted with programs such as OnGuardOnlines NetCetera (2009) program (implemented and evaluated in 3g). Each of these concerns is addressed directly in the Boards adopted policies and administrative procedures, and reflected in the Acceptable Use Agreement required of all staff and students using network resources.
GOAL 3F: Students and teachers will understand and adhere to standards guiding ethical use of information technology. Objective 3F.1: Use of computers and network technologies will follow the requirements of the adopted Acceptable Use Agreement. Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, teachers will receive guidance and copy of the publication Netcetera Chatting with Kids about Being Online. By June 2012, an Information Literacy Team will locate and acquire or create ethical use resources and correlate it with the core curriculum for grades levels 4 through 8. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, all schools will develop a school technology plan (integrated into the school improvement plan) that emphasizes the leadership of teachers in guiding students toward ethical uses of technology following Netceteras guidelines. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, students in grades 4 through 8 will exhibit legal and ethical behaviors when using information and technology. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation School Improvement Plans Annually Dir II - STEM Incident logs marking AUP infringement Annually IS Director Action Step Completion Date Person Responsible 1. Discuss with employees and students current changes in June 2012/ongoing Executive Dir. T&L, information technologies and the effect those changes Tech Planning have on the workplace and society Coordinator, Tech Coordinator, site administrators, teachers 2. Provide easily accessible, developmentally appropriate June 2012/ongoing Executive Dir. T&L, resources related to the ethical use of information Tech Planning technology for teachers and parents to use with students Coordinator, Technology Coordinator 3. Provide teachers with the publication Copyright and June 2012/ongoing Tech Planning Fair Use Guidelines for Teachers; emphasize Coordinator, Tech importance of leadership in establishing ethical uses of Coordinator, Tech information technology Mentors, site webmasters 4. Provide teachers with the publication Netcetera June 2012/ongoing Tech Planning Chatting with Kids about Being Online; emphasize Coordinator, Tech importance of leadership in establishing ethical uses of Coordinator, Tech information technology and electronic communication Mentors, site 18
5.
6.
Teachers will use the resources provided by the Information Literacy Team to instruct students in grades 4 8 on the ethical use of technology. Evaluate with students in grades 6 8 the accuracy, relevance, appropriateness, comprehensiveness, and bias of electronic information sources concerning public policy issues.
June 2014
June 2014
webmasters Site administrators, Executive Dir T&L, Tech Coordinator Executive Dir. T&L
3g. Goals and implementation plan for Internet safety and online privacy.
The Boards adopted policies and administrative procedures, reflected in the Acceptable Use Agreement required of all staff and students using network resources, ensure that privacy expectations are met. Classroom instruction guides children with rules for Internet safety that include avoiding online predators.
GOAL 3G: Students will understand and adhere to standards to ensure Internet safety and online privacy. Objective 3G.1: All students using computers and network technologies will follow the requirements of the adopted Acceptable Use Agreement. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation Incident logs marking AUP infringement Annually IS Director Action Step Completion Date Person Responsible 1. The district will maintain CIPA compliant filtering Annually IS Director systems to ensure that students do not access inappropriate matter on the Internet 2. Provide teachers and site administrators with easily Annually Technology accessible, developmentally appropriate resources to Coordinator, teach students internet safety and proper use of Technology Planning technology as reflected in the district AUP. Coordinator 3. Teachers use educate students on Internet safety and Annually Technology online privacy issues using the resources provided Coordinator, site administrators 4. Students will not use school system equipment or Annually IS Director resources to electronically communicate with individuals for non-instructional purposes. This includes e-mail correspondence, chat rooms, instant/real time messenger services, or any other form of electronic direct communication. Such contacts may only be made with the approval and supervision of school system personnel and be conducted solely for instructional purposes 5. Students are prohibited from participating in any Annually IS Director unauthorized access ('hacking') of computer systems or any other unlawful technological activities 6. Students and school system employees are prohibited Annually IS Director from the unauthorized electronic disclosure of personal student information including name, home address, phone number, or other important personal information 7. Provide training and resources to teachers, instructional Annually Tech Planning aides and administrators emphasize importance of Coordinator, Tech leadership in students adherence to ethical uses of Coordinator, Tech 19
information technology and electronic communication 8. Design series of trainings focusing on internet safety including the following topics: cyber bullying, protecting online privacy and avoiding online predators addressing current and emerging technologies Annually
Mentors, site webmasters Tech Coordinator, Director II - STEM
3h. Goals and implementation plan for programs and methods of utilizing technology ensuring equitable access to all students.
As with many school districts in California, the economic status of the Ontario-Montclair School Districts families varies significantly, but is weighted heavily toward the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, with 80 percent of enrolled students eligible for participation in the Federal School Lunch Program. As a result, access to computer technology outside the school is often very limited and students are dependent upon school and community-based resources for their access to technologies students in many communities can find in every home. This places the onus on schools to provide access to our students both during and outside the school day, as well as to work with the communities of Ontario and Montclair to help provide greater access to computer technologies for students and their families in community facilities. The focus on middle school students is a starting point. It will bring about a consistency through hardware and software acquisitions for classrooms, labs and library/media centers, and professional development for teachers on how and why to integrate technology into standards based lessons for all core subjects to increase student learning and mastery. All students, including special needs, English language learners, and/or other designated students will have equal access to the technologies available to others at their school sites. District programs and activities shall be free from discrimination, including harassment, with respect to ethnic group, religion, gender, color, race, national origin and physical or mental disability.
3i.
Plan to utilize technology to make student record keeping and assessment more efficient and supportive of teachers efforts to meet individual student academic needs.
The district has installed and supports multiple systems to ensure that teachers maintain and review individual student records. 1. During 2006-07 the district deployed a CALPADS-compliant, secure, district-wide integrated student data system. Migration of records from the earlier STUDENT/3000 system to the new Zangle suite was completed, and training provided to ensure that site staff could effectively maintain core records related to enrollment, attendance, special needs, participation in extended learning/intersession programs, discipline, and historic performance on state tests. During 2008-09 middle school teachers volunteered to pilot the Gradebook application to simplify marks reporting and provide parents with webbased views of their childs attendance, homework and class assignments, and progress throughout the instructional term. 2. The district will implement Illuminate for benchmark testing and data analyses in reading/language arts and math at grades kindergarten through eight to replace DataDirector. Both provide extensive reporting features, permitting teachers to evaluate
20
achievement patterns for individuals and sub-groups across multiple achievement measures and academic years. The Illuminate software includes data warehouse capabilities, linked to the Zangle student system records as its primary source of student information. The data warehouse provides centralized reporting and analysis of achievement across the district using teacher created assessment, CST and benchmark data. Benchmark Assessments are administered every six weeks. The results are uploaded to Illuminate for individual teacher review. Teachers collaborate in grade level and department teams to analyze the Benchmark Assessment results. During the Structured Teacher Planning Time (STPT) Benchmark Assessment results are used to analyze the strength of the instructional program. This is done by using Illuminate reports that disaggregate the results by standard. This process informs teachers regarding the effectiveness of their lessons on specific standards. Teachers whose classes demonstrated exceptional performance on identified standards share effective strategies with their colleagues. Teachers also collaborate around Illuminate reports that drill down to the student level. This allows them not only to see who has achieved proficiency overall and on specific standards but also which students are showing growth. Error analysis strategies are discussed so that teachers can re-teach on weak standards either to the whole class or small groups. Finally, teachers analyze Illuminate reports to prepare for the next Benchmark Assessment. They look at reports from the previous year to focus in on which standards students typically struggle with. Thus, teachers collaborate around the use of Illuminate reports for standards-based and students-based analysis in both review and preview mode.
GOAL 3I: OMSD will implement an integrated data collection and record keeping system so teachers can better monitor student progress and inform instruction
Objective 3I.1: All teachers and administrators will access integrated online record and data resources to record and monitor student progress, and inform and modify instruction to address student needs. Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, all teachers and administrators will have been trained on the use of the Illuminate student performance tracking system. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, all teachers and administrators will participate in ongoing training on analysis and use of data to drive classroom instruction and improve student achievement. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, all teachers have access to online data resources integrated through Zangle and Illuminate to report and communicate student achievement data to parents. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation Director II, Standards & Assessment will monitor Ongoing Director II - S&A implementation and collect feedback from principals and users. Feedback on training and usage through SharePoint surveys Ongoing Director II - S&A, Executive Director, Learning & Teaching Action Step Completion Date Person Responsible 1. Train users on job appropriate modules of Illuminate Ongoing Illuminate staff, Director II - S&A, TOA 2. Complete installation and update configuration of August 2011 Illuminate staff, Illuminate 3. Train teachers to access Zangle and assessment data June 2012 Illuminate staff, bases using Illuminate Director II - S&A, TOA
21
4. 5.
Provide ongoing teacher and administrator training on using online assessment data to inform instruction Teachers collaborate with grade-level/department team to analyze benchmark data from Illuminate to build lessons targeting the necessary standards.
Ongoing Ongoing
Illuminate staff, Director II - S&A, TOA Site administrators, Director II - S&A, TOA
3j.
Utilizing technology to improve two-way communication between home and school.
The district and schools will use technology to improve two-way communication between home and school. Site and department web portals built with Microsoft SharePoint software will expand public access to informational content about District services to the community including calendared events and news, classroom assignments and options for teacher contact. An updated telephone and voicemail system, integrated with email will provide a variety of contact options for parents and teachers once it is installed. The Zangle student information system also provides schools and teachers the capability to post attendance for all grade levels and classroom assignments and achievement data for middle school grade levels in a secure environment accessible to parents/guardians. Zangle securely synchronizes students parent contact information with BlackBoard Connect. BlackBoard Connect will continue to be used by schools to send home important information regarding school activities, reminders and emergency and outreach messages as necessary to ensure parents have notification of activities or events outside of the normal instructional type. Additionally, BlackBoard Connect will continue to be used for automated attendance calling with the goal of resolving more absences and increasing student attendance. New software-as-a-service offerings from companies such as Gaggle offer hosted solutions allowing teachers to have logged, moderated and filtered blogging, chat and secure messaging between students and teachers as well as parents and teachers that can further improve the bidirectional school-home communication. GOAL 3J: Use technology to improve two-way communication between home and school.
Objective 3J.1: By June 2014, parents will have access to a variety of student information online to help support their involvement in their childrens education. Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, OMSD will install an updated voicemail system at the district level integrated with e-mail, which will provide a variety of contact options for parents and district staff. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, 50% of teachers will have class SharePoint web pages through which they can communicate with parents. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, 25% of teachers will have an online presence with the ability to communicate with parents securely and safely electronically via their webpage. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation IS Director will monitor implementation and collect Ongoing IS Director feedback from principals Collect usage data for Zangle and SharePoint to determine Annually IS Director, Tech the level of teacher and parent use of the systems Planning Coordinator Report progress to the Board of Trustees annually Annually IS Director Action Step Completion Date Person Responsible 1. Train district office users to use the new June 2012 IS Director phone/voicemail system 2. Upgrade Microsoft Exchange Server, providing June 2012/onoging IS Director, Network Integrated Messaging for voice, email, and faxes. Engineer
22
3.
Train teachers to create class SharePoint web pages to post assignments, class news and resources Create and provide online guides for SharePoint portal
Ongoing
4.
Ongoing
5.
Develop a process to provide parents and teachers secure access to online collaboration systems Provide teacher training on use of the community-facing collaboration system
June 2013
6.
ongoing
Tech Planning Coordinator, Tech Mentors, Webmaster Tech Planning Coordinator, Tech Mentors, Webmaster IS Director, Network Administrator, Data Warehouse Manager IS Director, Tech Planning Coordinator, Webmaster
3k. Process to Monitor Whether the Strategies and Methodologies Utilizing Technology are Being Implemented According to the Benchmarks and Timeline.
The districts Instructional Technology Standards Committee, made up of representatives from schools, Learning Support Services, Information Services, Staff Development, Business and Operations, will be the forum for an annual review of the goals and objectives contained in the plan. The ITSC meets monthly to review data for all aspects of the plan, and will prepare an annual summary review of progress. All data and reports presented to the ITSC will be compiled by a representative subcommittee for presentation to the Cabinet and the Board of Trustees annually. Evaluations and other measurements described in the previous Goal and Objective charts (Sections 3d-3i) will be the responsibility of the individuals identified in the charts as the Person(s) Responsible.
4. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Todays youth are exposed to a model of teaching and learning that is largely devoid of the same technologies they use at home. (Jim Bosco, professor emeritus, Western Michigan University.) Technology knowledge and skill levels have a direct impact on the ability of teachers and administrators to address the learning needs of todays students. To create a rich, technologically integrated, standards-based learning environment, staff members must be well versed in best practices and competent, confident technology users. A well designed and implemented professional development program assists staff members to use appropriate technology to facilitate the teaching and learning process. A broad-based program integrating technology with curriculum and instructional strategies will be implemented to improve student achievement and the needs of the teachers, administrators and classified staff identified through needs assessment and established curriculum priorities. The technology skills levels and professional development needs of district staff members are measured various ways. Teacher and administrator technology skills levels and professional development needs were frequently surveyed when funding allowed using a variety of instruments including the EdTechProfile (the June 2006 summary table is shown below) and local surveys of administrators, teachers and classified staff members.
23
4a. Summary of teachers and administrators current technology skills and needs for professional development.
The technology skills and integration levels, and subsequent professional development needs, of teachers and administrators is measured using the EdTechProfile. (See charts below)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Elementary
General computer knowledge and skills Internet skills E-mail skills Word processing skills Presentation software skills Spreadsheet software skills Database software skills
Middle School
24
Administrators
The following conclusions can be drawn from the EdTechProfile Assessment Survey and other survey data: The levels and types of technology use vary across the district and depend to a great extent on the individual users access to and personal proficiency with both hardware and applications. All staff members report the highest degree of personal proficiency in word processing, while revealing varying levels of knowledge and effectiveness in general computer knowledge and skills, including Internet and e-mail use. They report the least confidence in their ability to analyze and monitor student achievement data, use technology to enhance learning and select instructional technology resources. The data clearly show that staff members cover the range of proficiency levels from low introductory levels to proficient use, and indicate the need for multiple professional growth opportunities to address learners at all levels. Individual understanding of the power and effectiveness of various technologies as instructional tools impacts the frequency and type of use. Teachers express a desire to learn to use the newer technology tools such as interactive presentation tools, streaming video, digital imaging and publishing, along with basic applications. Teachers have requested modeling and coaching in their classrooms to help them learn how to effectively integrate technology into their instructional practices. Administrators voice a need to recognize best practices for the integration of instructional technology into standards-based instruction and better understand the data systems that help them assist teachers to improve learning. There is a clear need for ongoing professional development to raise the levels of technology use and awareness, and the implementation of best practices in the application of technology to instruction and learning. New teachers who participate in BTSA more readily meet the Standard 9 (Using Technology in the Classroom) and Standard 16 (Using Technology to Support Student Learning) elements. Non-participating teachers need more sustained, intensive professional development opportunities to meet these standards and achieve the CCTC Technology Proficiencies. During 2008-09 teachers professional competency with tech fundamentals was examined through three windows, self reports to survey questions, Principal interviews, and direct observations by Technology Support Providers working with teachers. Nearly all teachers participating in site training adopted email and word processing as useful applications, and reported retrieving content-specific resources using the Internet. These
25
levels of use were twice as high as found with staff at sites that did not provide training and follow-up coaching. Most used technology to present some lessons, with SMART Boards and document cameras finding widest use.
4b. Goals and implementation plan for providing professional development opportunities based on the needs assessment and the Curriculum Component goals, benchmarks, and timeline.
To address these needs and support the curriculum, two goals have been established for technology professional development during the duration of this plan. The accomplishment of these goals will be monitored through a variety of activities represented in the action plan.
GOAL 4B.1: All employees will increase their personal and professional technology skills to support state curriculum standards and improve student achievement. Objective 4B.1: OMSD will provide an array of professional development programs to raise staff and student technology use to the level of proficient or higher Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, standards based models of technology integration will be included in ongoing professional development for all employees. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, 60% of teachers will evaluate as proficient on the applicable skills and use technology for instruction multiple times per week. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, 80% of teachers will evaluate as proficient on the applicable skills and use technology for instruction multiple times per week. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation Annual EdTechProfile surveys will be analyzed for growth in Annually Site administrators, teacher self-assessments and instructional technology use teachers, Tech Coordinator Professional development workshops evaluations will be Ongoing for all Tech Coordinator, analyzed for effectiveness of training and follow-up workshops Director IIs, Executive measures in addition to attendee responses Director Learning & Teaching, TOAs Classroom observations and coaching follow-up Ongoing throughout each Site administrators, school year Tech Mentors, Tech Coordinator, Tech Planning Coordinator EdTechProfile student surveys (or an alternative assessment) Annually Teachers, Site will be completed and analyzed at the middle schools to administrators, Tech determine impact on student use of technology Planning Coordinator and Tech Coordinators Objective 4B.2: Provide mentoring and support for teachers as they learn to appropriately integrate technology into instruction. Year 1 Benchmark: Teachers On Assignment (TOAs) will assist teachers in creating technology integrated lessons that promote student interaction and higher level thinking skills to acquire mastery of essential standards. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, 50% of teachers will participate in collaborative activities (file sharing, discussion groups, blogs, etc.) related to instructional technology integration on the OMSD SharePoint space. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, Technology Coordinator, TOAs will make follow-up visits with Principals and staff to assist with technology integration following professional development activities. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation Analysis of SharePoint use by teachers for collaboration Annually Tech Planning Coordinator Review of student products and teacher and Tech Mentor Each trimester Tech Mentors, feedback to determine implementation, impact and Teachers, ITSC modifications Annual EdTechProfile survey to measure professional Annually Technology 26
development impact on teacher technology skills and use Action Step 1. Use EdTechProfile, workshop evaluations, and needs surveys to develop staff development offerings that address assessed needs of staff. 2. Provide ongoing professional development to assist all staff with use of district standard applications 3. Provide scheduled, ongoing professional development to assist instructional, support staff , and site administrators with productivity skills 4. Align teacher focused professional development activities with CSTP and NETS-T standards 5. Provide curriculum centered training for teachers and administrators on how to incorporate technology tools into standards based instruction for all subject areas 6. Develop hands-on workshops for administrators to become familiar with instructional technologies and to help them recognize best practices of technology integration into instruction 7. Create a Technology Summer Camp where teachers can spend an extended time learning to use digital classroom technologies 8. Identify information and media literacy resources and provide training for staff members on how to integrate them into the core curriculum. 9. Provide BTSA modules on technology use and integration for new teachers 10. Use SharePoint collaborative space to share resources, lesson plans, best practices, discussions and mentoring for all professional development activities 11. Use online tools to promote professional development activities 12. Configure and implement online professional development registration and data management (GoSignMeUp) 13. Develop or provide access to online training materials
Completion Date Ongoing throughout each school year
Ongoing throughout each school year Ongoing throughout each school year June 2012 and then ongoing throughout each school year Ongoing throughout each school year
Coordinator, ITSC Person Responsible Professional Development Director, Tech Coordinator, Site administrators Director IIs, Tech Coordinator Tech Coordinator
Technology Coordinator Executive Director Learning & Teacher, Director IIs, Tech Coordinator Tech Coordinator, Tech Mentor, ATP Facilitator
June 2012 and then ongoing throughout each school year Summer 2012-2013
Ongoing
Ongoing to address each BTSA cohort Ongoing
Tech Coordinator, Tech Mentors, Tech Planning Coordinator Tech Coordinator, Learning & Teaching Department BTSA Consultants Technology Planning Coordinator, Tech Coordinator, Tech Mentors, PD instructors Classified Development Specialist Professional Development Director, Tech Coordinator Tech Coordinator, Tech Planning Coordinator Tech Coordinator, TOAs, Director IIs
Ongoing July 2011
June 2012/ongoing
14. Schedule grade level collaboration-day trainings to help Ongoing teachers learn to identify, create and integrate technology resources into standards based instruction, and utilize information and media literacy resources GOAL 4B.3: All staff will become proficient with technology tools essential for effective communication and efficient administrative functions. Objective 4B.3 By June 2011, all teachers, administrators and office staff will use a variety of technology tools to improve communication, collaboration and instruction. Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, staff members will participate in job appropriate training for Illuminate. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, all teachers and administrators will use electronic communication daily. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, all of targeted staff will use technology effectively to improve communication, collaboration and instruction. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation 27
Review user feedback on staff development, use of collaborative tools for communication,
IS Director, Director IIs, Tech Planning Coordinator, Tech Coordinator Classroom observations of teacher use of communication and Ongoing Site administrators, visualization tools to improve student learning. TOAs, Tech Coordinator Action Step Completion Date Person Responsible 1. Train all staff to utilize job appropriate modules of Ongoing Director II _ Standards Illuminate & Assessments, TOAs 2. Model use of presentation and visualization tools in Ongoing Tech Coordinator, Tech content area professional development Mentors 3. Provide scheduled, ongoing professional development to Ongoing Tech Coordinator, Tech assist staff with communication skills using technology Planning Coordinator 4. Integrate use of communication tools into all Ongoing Director IIs, TOAs, professional development Tech Coordinator 5. Provide training on SharePoint collaborative space to all Ongoing Tech Planning professional development instructors and then use it to Coordinator, Tech post materials, share resources, and promote Coordinator, Tech collaboration Mentors, PD instructors 6. Use web-based resources to support communication and Ongoing Tech Planning collaboration Coordinator, Tech Coordinator, Tech Mentors, PD instructors 7. Provide training on SharePoint and other online Ongoing Tech Planning communication tools to develop subject area and grade Coordinator, Tech level communication and collaboration within and Coordinator, Tech between schools Mentors, PD instructors GOAL 4B.4: All teachers and instructional support staff will become proficient with Illuminate data and assessment management system. Objective 4B.3 By June 2014, all teachers, administrators and office staff will use Illuminate data and assessment management system to monitor student progress and adjust instruction. Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, specified staff members at each school will participate in job appropriate training for Illuminate. Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, all teachers and administrators will use Illuminate to report and track students academic progress. Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, all teachers will use Illuminate to scan student assessments and evaluate standard reports. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation Evaluate Zangle and SharePoint usage reports to help Each trimester IS Director, Tech determine professional development needs. Planning Coordinator Review user feedback on staff development, use of Each trimester IS Director, Director collaborative tools for communication, IIs, Tech Planning Coordinator, Tech Coordinator Classroom observations of teacher use of communication and Ongoing Site administrators, visualization tools to improve student learning. TOAs, Tech Coordinator Action Step Completion Date Person Responsible 1. Train all staff to use Illuminate application to monitor July 2012, ongoing Dir II Standards/ achievement for individual students and defined groups. Assessments 2. Train all staff to use DataDirector application to scan July 2013 Dir II Standards/ and analyze assessment records using standard reports. Assessments 3. Provide scheduled, ongoing professional development to Ongoing Dir II Standards/ 28
Each trimester
assist staff with DataDirector application.
Assessments
4c. Process to monitor professional development goals and activities

We use the most current data from the EdTechProfile in conjunction with workshop evaluations, local surveys and Professional Development Department data, to plan ongoing professional development for teachers and administrators on technology use and integration. Annual updates of the EdTechProfile data and professional development evaluations, along with observations by administrators and the district Technology Support Providers will be used to monitor results and adjust our plan. The district Staff Development Department will oversee the implementation of the professional development component of the Technology Master Plan in collaboration with Information Services and the Instructional Technology Standards Committee. Monitoring Professional Development activities: 1. During the 2011-12 school year, the Professional Development Department will implement the GoSignMeUp learning management system to help streamline and monitor all district level professional development. The system will provide processes for registration, course management and professional development participation tracking for all district employees. 2. The Technology Coordinator will monitor and adjust the implementation of technology professional development on an ongoing basis using the data gathered through the new learning management system, workshop evaluations completed by participants, the EdTechProfile data, and surveys addressing technology use, user needs and accomplishments. The Instructional Technology Standards Committee will review summary data regarding user proficiency, technology use and identified needs annually to ensure that implementation is effective and the goals are addressed. Professional development content and processes will be refined as needed. The monitoring processes for the individual professional development goals are included in the charts above (4b).
5. INFRASTRUCTURE, HARDWARE, TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND SOFTWARE COMPONENT

5a. Describe the existing hardware, Internet access, electronic learning resources, and technical support already in the district that could be used to support the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan.
The district uses four hardware components to support teaching and learning: interactive whiteboards, computers, video technologies, and Internet access. The existing ratio of students per computer is 4:1, although significant variability exists between schools. Interactive whiteboards have been installed in every classroom and each teacher has a notebook computer. Installation of the core data network and basic voice/telephone systems has been completed, linking every classroom into the networks. Work sites are coupled to the central office network operations center via leased fiber optic links. Wireless network access covers every classroom to support the teacher notebooks and laptop/mobile thin client carts.
29
Most district schools and office facilities are at least 40 years old. The electrical standards in place when they were built no longer meet the requirements of modern schools. Many computers have been obtained through grants, gifts, or restricted allocations which do not include expenditures for increasing electrical facilities. The ongoing search for space in schools has repeatedly pushed Intermediate Distribution Frame (IDF) cabinets and electronic components into areas never intended for the purpose, creating electrical and air conditioning/ventilation problems and often degrading network functionality. While moving notebooks to wireless access points has helped, these will be ongoing issues until funding is acquired to undertake major upgrades at the sites. Network Infrastructure. The Information Services department is responsible for maintaining the network infrastructure and all attached devices. The Wide Area Network (WAN) is comprised of thirty-six sites that connect to the district office via leased fiber optic for all schools and T1 lines for support sites. The district office connects to the Internet via one leased fiber link through the Chaffey Node of the California K12 High Speed Network (K12HSN), using standard routers, switches, and servers (see diagram, Appendix A below). With direction from a Registered Communications Distribution Designer (RCDD) a project Assessment and Planning Guide was drafted during 2006-07 to: 1. 2. 3. 4. establish required standards for infrastructure planning and technical design resources, specify the types of technology which must be reviewed for impact, identify the minimum infrastructure support required by each technology, and provide assessment and mitigation procedures.
Network Support. Effectively managing each of the technical specialties for network components and functions requires extensive training and enough time to ensure that the critical tasks are done well. Even a brief failure at any of the critical junctions in this system disrupts workflow and affects scores of workers and students. Expectations for ensuring system access and business continuity have increased, requiring updates of existing technologies used for firewall protection and system backup, and expansion of security and disaster recovery capabilities. Implementing Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Certificates for Internet sites, together with some Virtual Private Networking (VPN) strategies, will allow authorized computers outside our firewall to tunnel through and access resources using the Internet. Teachers, for example, expect the flexibility of entering students grades from home, without exposing these confidential data sets to unauthorized scrutiny. Other security technologies including Network Access Control (NAC) devices and Virtual Networks (VLANs) are expected to ensure record integrity as we expand public access and add wireless communication systems. Network activities: 1. Connections to the campus and regional educational network will be installed and maintained to reach all district employees whose work requires computer usage, for example, all classrooms and Food & Nutrition Services staff in school locations. 2. Voice telephony will be provided from every classroom and work location to ensure necessary access to communication systems. Wireless voice services and portable wireless devices affording Internet access will be provided where necessary to ensure the district meets expectations for maintaining safe and orderly operations.
30
3. Upgrading the site switching and routing infrastructure to carry voice, video and data effectively, including interactive video conference connections, will be required during the coming three-year cycle. 4. The district provides high-capacity wireless network access so that large densities of mobile computing devices can be used simultaneously and most effectively. 5. All network designs, specification and installations will be completed and inspected with the assistance of a Registered Communications Distribution Designer (RCDD). 6. The district will establish a replacement cycle ensuring that switches and campus infrastructure at all schools and work locations are maintained to support core applications. 7. The district will install and maintain firewall, security, and filtering services in compliance with the Childrens Internet Protection Act (CIPA) to ensure proper system security for students and staff and the integrity of network applications. 8. The topology and performance of the district network will be reviewed annually to ensure that curriculum and/or support needs for technologies are not curtailed by out-of-date transmission capabilities. Hardware. The network provides students and staff with access to a growing array of applications and services. The plain number of district-owned server computers has increased from 10 to 140 since 2000. The operating environment for these keystone components has grown increasingly complex, as vendors expand the features essential to their products performance and as security specialists grapple with the invasive problem of viruses and similarly disabling tricks. Configuring and managing the switches, routers, printers, and storage components needed to carry the billions of voice, video, and data packets moving across the district network is an enormous challenge. Even tasks such as file backup, once routine, have become significant challenges as the needed training, resources, and time demanded by the task have all increased. The district publishes an on-line guide for standard hardware purchases, securing volume discounts, and simplifying operations and maintenance. The district also avoids repair costs, having five PC technicians trained at the industry level of A+ skill certification. Competitive bidding is used to control costs for systems projects, most recently the new blade servers and VMware virtualization software. In each case, multiple vendors delivered proposals intended to meet the districts specifications. Consultation with a Registered Communications Distribution Designer (RCCD) helps ensure that construction bids secure fair market pricing. Video content has become an increasingly pervasive component of instruction. Interactive whiteboards currently are installed in all classrooms and some are reaching end-of-life and will need to be replaced/upgraded soon. During the 2008-2009 school year, Ontario-Montclair had lagged behind the county average of students per computer (6.3:1 versus 4.4:1 in the county). Since then, over 2,000 virtualized desktops were added bring our ration down to 4:1, below the county average. Site staff members responding to technology surveys during 2008 repeatedly identified problems with the following: 1. Securing enough equipment. Comments identified needs for purchasing more mobile carts with notebook PCs, projectors, document cameras, color laser printers, and assistive technology for students receiving special education services. Following the 2008 state
31
budget crisis, the district eliminated specific technology allocations, money once intended to ensure that each school had a consistent technology base. The widely held belief, expressed by a district principal, is that providing our students and teachers with modern technology tools for learning should not depend on site budgets. 2. Replacing equipment on a regular cycle. Principals are caught by the feast/famine uncertainties associated with tying technology acquisitions to grants, gifts, or restricted allocations. Elementary schools report that 20 percent of PCs were more than four years old; at middle schools 14 percent were more than four years old. At some sites the percentage of obsolete computers had passed 85 percent prior to the district initiative to purchase mobile thin clients. 3. Training. Training needs were noted for most of the network-based applications supported for staff and students. Only three percent of teachers identified themselves as Proficient overall on CCTC Program Standard 16: Using Technology to Support Student Learning. 4. Support. Support services have focused on resolving three long-term complaints, noting (a) the time lost waiting to have necessary facilities improvements completed, (b) to have purchase requests completed, and (c) getting requested repairs completed. Of 32 schools responding to the CDE Technology Survey in 2008, the most common response to the question: When hardware breaks at your site, how long does it usually take to fix the problem? was, within two to five work days (17). Helpdesk records indicate that 4,424 of the 6,226 trouble tickets from 2007-08 were cleared within three days 71 percent. As of 2010, the number of tickets resolved within three days increased to 83 percent due to desktop virtualization, technician trainings and make more efficient use of remote management Desktop Support. Failure to ensure prompt installation, maintenance and repair services marginalizes both the technology and the staff development investments. It discourages employees and students from using these systems, and precludes any appreciable return measured by either academic improvement or worker productivity. Hardware activities: 1. The district will adhere to hardware purchasing standards to ensure network integrity and effective component performance to support implementation of the districts Curriculum and Professional Development components. 2. Automated Helpdesk support will provide staff members with guidance on system usage and will be used for dispatching field support staff and tracking trouble calls. 3. Each school will ensure that all students and teachers have access to the technology needed for full implementation of the adopted district curriculum, communication, and pupil assessment systems. The ratio of students:PC will be 4:1 by 2011. 4. The ratio of computers to field staff will be left far higher than necessary due to budget constraints facing state and local agencies. Software. Detailed student records of achievement, attendance, behavior incidents, health, parent contact information, and so on, are maintained in our student information system (currently Zangle). Other adopted software provides access to instructional, financial, personnel and administrative functions. The number of network-based applications has grown by 70 percent since 2005. Systems have been purchased and developed to meet immediate department,
32
site, or individual needs with little attention to comparability or integration of data elements between systems. Four serious problems have resulted from this adoption practice: 1. System compatibility. With increasing frequency, users have identified needs to integrate data elements stored in one system with information maintained in a different system. The disparate operating standards employed by developers have made this difficult. Employees lost productivity is assumed to be larger than the acquisition and maintenance costs of the non-connected, duplicative systems. 2. Professional development. Training employees to make effective use of critical software functions and features has been made increasingly difficult by the proliferation. 3. Support. Installing, configuring, and supporting hardware, including devices as essential as printers and hand-held peripherals, which are needed to make effective use of software features, has amplified the problems facing support staff. 4. Cost. The leverage of large-purchase agreements is lost. Network-based software applications are built over complex database structures. Emphasis during the past three years continued to focused on communication and collaboration. Blackboard ConnectEd provides increased school to home communication. SharePoint web portal systems support electronic communication, shared calendars, and work-group collaboration for all staff members. The number of teacher created lessons on MyOMSD has surpassed 14,000, each aligned to state standards. Web access to e-mail lets employees maintain communication even when off track or away from the district. Effective use by students and teachers, and effective technological support for these systems will be enhanced by following a standards-based selection process similar to the textbook adoption model, and monitored by the Instructional Technology Standards Committee. Software activities: 1. The district will maintain a list of recommended software applications to maintain operational integrity, simplify training and support, and obtain best-available prices. The district anticipates significant consolidation of software resources, emphasizing networkbase applications. This shift will include increased attention to the training and support essential to effective use. 2. The district will store achievement records from multiple sources in the Illuminate data warehouse matched with the Zangle student system records as its primary source of student information. The data warehouse will provide centralized reporting and analysis of data spread across disparate systems within the district. The data warehouse will also assist in identifying inconsistencies between these different sources of data. 3. Information Services will develop programming scripts to automate the alignment of student records. This will ensure that data are entered only once in one application and automatically propagated to other applications. For example, when a new student is enrolled in Zangle, he or she would be automatically added to the districts textbook tracking, food services, and transportation systems. 4. All adopted software applications maintaining student or faculty records must be secured by industry standard technologies and accessed through standard SQL logic ensuring accurate and timely data interchanges.
33
5. The district will promote the effective, educational use of the Internet and other electronic resources in our schools through professional development and student instruction regarding the safe, ethical, legal, and responsible use of the Internet, the district's network, and other electronic resources. 6. The district has adopted Scholastics Read 180 Suite as a district wide intervention program in language arts which continues to show large gains in Benchmark scores among participating students.
5b. Hardware, electronic learning resources, networking and telecommunication infrastructure, physical plant modifications, and technical support needed by the districts teachers, students, and administrators to support the activities in the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan.
Ontario-Montclair has a district level Information Services Department that serves the needs of all district school. Long-term targets are identified for the hardware, electronic learning resources, networking and telecommunication infrastructure, physical plant modifications, and technical support needed by the districts teachers, students, and administrators to support the activities in the Curriculum and Professional Development Components of the plan, as funding allows.
Level Elementary schools Have Networking and Telecommunications: Minimum of three Internet drops to each classroom. Cable TV operational in 10 percent of classrooms. Mini computer labs in some classrooms. Broadband connections to each school site. All schools have up-to-date Cisco Systems switches and routers. Minimum of 10/100 Ethernet switches for user access. Wireless network coverage in most indoor instructional areas. All schools have classroom telephone or intercom-linked systems. One-third provide voicemail services for all teaching and administrative staff. On-line access to Zangle SIS, Illuminate, Library/Textbook distribution and distributed learning systems. Two schools have a video surveillance system to ensure the safety of students, staff, and district resources. Need Networking and Telecommunications: Minimum of nine Internet data drops. Networkbased multimedia distribution system able to stream to each classroom to replace antiquated coaxial systems. Mini computer labs in most classrooms. Broadband multi-megabit wide area network. Upto-date switches and routers. Gbps fiber based local area network backbone. VLAN and PoE capable 10/100/1000 Ethernet switches for user access. High-density, managed secure wireless local area network access for teachers, staff and students. Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) and integrated email-voicemail services (unified messaging) for all teaching and administrative staff. On-line access to Zangle SIS, Illuminate, Library/Textbook and distributed learning systems. Internet protocol (IP) based video surveillance to ensure the safety of students, staff, and district resources. Video conferencing infrastructure to extend staff development, training, and instructional opportunities beyond the classroom. Physical plant modifications: Expanding access to technology-based support systems will require continuing physical plant upgrades to both electrical service and air conditioning facilities. Hardware: Upgrade obsolete equipment; mobilelabs with thin-client computers in all primary classrooms, ensuring a student:PC ratio of 4:1. Each classroom should have a SmartBoard, digital LCD projector, document camera, audio support, and switches for multiple access points, network attached laser printer, peripherals and needed
Physical plant modifications: Electrical service upgrades were part of modernization projects completed at most of the districts campuses. Hardware: Computers in each classroom. Instructional lab 20-134 computers at 20 sites. 1-62 computers in library at 18 sites. Mini labs in 60% of rooms, minimum of one server at each site for DHCP and file saving. SmartBoards and/or LCD projectors in all classrooms. Every school has at least 2 34
mobile laptop carts (15-30 units each). Various peripherals and adaptive devices have been purchased. Most classrooms have an interactive whiteboard. Electronic Learning Resources: Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer installed on all PCs, with online access to Exchange e-mail, SharePoint, OARS, and Illuminate. Some sites provide Accelerated Reader, Read 180, Accelerated Math, Reading Counts, Lexia, and a wide assortment of teacher-selected software titles. Technical support: through Information Services at district office. Maintenance contracted for core switches, routers, servers and storage systems.
adaptive devices. Each school should have 1-2 mobile AlphaSmart carts, 6 laptop labs (wireless), 5-10 computers in libraries. Each classroom should have a voice reinforcement/amplification system which includes a student and a teacher microphone. Electronic Learning Resources: Learning resources need to be available to all schools. New curriculum based software needs to be evaluated and purchased as necessary to support both students attainment of adopted curricular goals and academic content standards and to extend students reach beyond minimal proficiencies. Technical support: One technician for each 2-3 schools, reporting to district office Information Services department. Maintenance contracted for core switches, routers, servers and storage systems. Maintenance contracted for structured cabling changes and repairs.
35
Level Middle schools
Have Networking and Telecommunications: Minimum of three Internet drops to each classroom. Cable TV operational in 20 percent of classrooms. Mini computer labs in some classrooms. Broadband connections to each school site. All schools have up-to-date Cisco Systems switches and routers. Minimum of 10/100 Ethernet switches for user access. All schools have classroom telephone or intercom-linked systems. None provides voicemail services for all teaching and administrative staff. On-line access to Zangle SIS, Illuminate, Library/ Textbook distribution and distributed learning systems. Four schools have a video surveillance system to ensure the safety of students, staff, and district resources.
Need Networking and Telecommunications: Minimum of nine Internet data drops and connection for video projector in each classroom. Network-based multimedia distribution system able to stream to each classroom to replace antiquated coaxial systems. Mini computer labs in most classrooms. Broadband multi-megabit wide area network. Up-to-date Cisco Systems switches and routers. 1 Gbps fiber optic based local area network backbone. Upgraded VLAN capable 10/100/1000 Ethernet switches for user access. Managed secure wireless local area network access for teachers, staff and students. Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) and integrated email-voicemail services for all teaching and administrative staff. On-line access to Zangle SIS, DataDirector, Library/ Textbook and distributed learning systems. Internet protocol (IP) based video surveillance to ensure the safety of students, staff, and district resources. Video conferencing infrastructure to extend staff development, training, and instructional opportunities beyond the classroom. Physical plant modifications: Expanding access to technology-based support systems will require continuing physical plant upgrades to both electrical service and air conditioning facilities. Hardware: Upgrade obsolete equipment; minilabs of 3-5 computers in all middle school classrooms, ensuring a student:PC ratio of 4:1. Each classroom should have a SmartBoard, digital LCD projector, document camera, audio support, and switches for multiple access points, network attached laser printer, peripherals and needed adaptive devices. Each school should have 8 mobile laptop labs (wireless), 10-25 computers in libraries. Each classroom should have a voice reinforcement/amplification system which includes a student and a teacher microphone. Electronic Learning Resources: Learning resource need to be available to all schools. New curriculum based software needs to be evaluated and purchased as necessary to support both students attainment of adopted curricular goals and academic content standards and to extend students reach beyond minimal proficiencies. Technical support: One technician for each two schools, reporting to district office Information Services department. Maintenance contracted for core switches, routers, servers and storage systems. Maintenance contracted for structured cabling changes and repairs.
Physical plant modifications: Evaluations of electrical service requirements have been ongoing for a decade. Modernization projects underway at half of the districts campuses will begin the update process. Hardware: Computers in each classroom. Instructional lab 20-35 computers at eight sites. 1-5 computers in library at 20 sites. Mini labs in 60% of rooms, minimum of one server at each site for DHCP and file saving. SmartBoards and/or LCD projectors in 150 classrooms. Only two schools have mobile laptop carts. Various peripherals and adaptive devices have been purchased.
Electronic Learning Resources: Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer installed on all PCs, with online access to Exchange e-mail, SharePoint, OARS, and Illuminate. Some sites provide Accelerated Reader, Read 180, Accelerated Math, Reading Counts, Lexia, and a wide assortment of teacher-selected software titles. Technical support: through Information Services at district office.
36
Level District Office
Have Networking and Telecommunications: Fiber based wide area network circuit to K12HSN node at Chaffey JUHSD; local firewall protecting publicly accessible resources, centralized anti-spyware and anti-spam system. Helpdesk software to prioritize calls for tech support. 100 Mbps and Gbps fiber optic based local area network backbone. Centralized parent notification system for routine and emergency notification messages.
Need Networking and Telecommunications: Upgraded local fire alarm/fire suppression capability to protect internal tech resources. Up-todate switches and routers; video conferencing. 10Gbps fiber optic connection to K12HSN and San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools network backbones. Upgraded VLAN capable 100/100/1000 Ethernet switches for user access. Managed secure wireless network access for staff. Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) and integrated email/voicemail services (unified messaging) for staff. Internet protocol (IP) based video surveillance to ensure the safety of staff and district resources. Network management software to support tech resources at school sites and district office. Upgraded data warehouse linking SIS with centralized assessment databases. Centralized parent notification system for routine and emergency notification messages. Upgrades to all district applications to allow each application to meet the requirements of the School Interoperability Framework (SIF) standard. Video conferencing infrastructure to extend staff development. Physical plant modifications: Expanding access to technology-based support systems will require continuing physical plant upgrades to both electrical service and air conditioning facilities. Hardware: Hardware replaced, virtualized, and updated as needed.
Physical plant modifications: Electrical and AC modernization projects.
Hardware: 50 servers to provide user authentication, Active Directory, file storage services, print services, email, groupware services, web hosting services, SIS and other student database, business functions; 24 station laptop computer labs with interactive whiteboard. Electronic Learning Resources: Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer installed on all PCs, with online access to Exchange e-mail, SharePoint, HR and business services applications. Support software systems adopted to meet district instructional and administrative priorities. Technical support: Director of Information Services, Technology Planning Coordinator, Data Warehouse Administrator, IS Database Specialist, IS Software Support Technicians, 2 Network Engineers, 5 IS System Support Technicians, IS Helpdesk Technician, Webmaster. Maintenance contracted for core switches, routers, servers and storage systems.
Electronic Learning Resources: Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer installed on all PCs. Continue to support software systems adopted to meet district instructional and administrative priorities including Zangle SIS and DataDirector.
Technical support: Employ computer technicians to maintain a ratio of 500 computers per 1 technician, and administrative staff to effectively manage Wide Area Network, campus Local Area Networks, e-mail and Web-based applications, infrastructure construction and operations, video conferencing, VoIP, and PBX voice systems. Maintenance contracted for core switches, routers, servers and storage systems. Maintenance contracted for structured cabling changes and repairs.
37
5c. List of clear benchmarks and a timeline for obtaining the hardware, infrastructure, learning resources and technical support required to support the other plan components.
This plan identifies priorities that must be reflected in hardware purchases and increased emphasis on training and support. 1. Elementary grade writing and keyboarding will require purchase of rechargeable AlphaSmart units in portable class sets, and deployment of thin-client technology labs. 2. Middle school students will complete one technology-based project in a core content course during each trimester requiring two or three mobile computer carts with a class set of laptop PCs, extra sets of batteries/chargers, and deployment of thin-client technology labs. 3. Teachers integrating technology into core instructional program will require Mentor training/support to weave into curriculum and broader training with MyOMSD resources. Purchases decisions are typically site-determined based on campus priorities and available funding. Goals and benchmarks identified below are identified as district-wide averages and recognize that securing benefits in pupil performance will depend more surely on providing teachers with reliable training and support than on the list of planned purchases. Goal 5C.1: All classrooms will include basic, standard technology to ensure that teachers can both augment students attainment of essential grade level standards and extend students reach beyond minimal proficiencies.
Objective 5C.1: OMSD will provide the hardware needed by the districts teachers, students, and administrators to support the activities identified in the Master Plan funded by grants and site monies. Year 1 Benchmark: All schools will be equipped to meet basic technology standards. The ratio of students:PC will be 6:1. Year 2 Benchmark: All schools will be equipped to meet basic technology standards. The ratio of students:PC will be 5:1. Year 3 Benchmark: All schools will be equipped to meet basic technology standards. The ratio of students:PC will be 4:1. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation Annual CBEDS technology data Annually Principals, IS Director, IT&R Coordinator Instructional Technology Standards Committee evaluation Annually ITSC leadership Objective 5C.2: OMSD will provide the electronic learning resources needed by the districts teachers, students, and administrators to support the activities identified in the Master Plan. Year 1 Benchmark: All teachers will have and use adopted learning resources including productivity suite, web browser, student information system and presentation software. Year 2 Benchmark: All teachers will have and use adopted learning resources including productivity suite, web browser, student information system, presentation software and assessment reporting software. Year 3 Benchmark: All teachers will have and use adopted learning resources including productivity suite, web browser, student information system, presentation software, assessment reporting software and online gradebook accessible to parents. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation EdTechProfile Annually Principals, IS Director, Tech Coordinator Instructional Technology Standards Committee evaluation Annually ITSC leadership Objective 5C.3: OMSD will provide the networking and telecommunication infrastructure and physical plant modifications needed by the districts teachers, students, and administrators to support the activities 38
identified in the Master Plan. Year 1 Benchmark: By June, 2012, the district office will have integrated telephony, messaging and video distribution facilities managed over the network. Year 2 Benchmark: By June, 2013, all schools will have necessary physical plant and infrastructure modifications needed to effectively support expanded tech implementation. Year 3 Benchmark: By June, 2014, all schools will have integrated telephony, messaging and video distribution facilities managed over the network. Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation IS Director will monitor implementation and collect Ongoing IS Director feedback from principals and users. Objective 5C.4: OMSD will provide the technical support needed by the districts teachers, students, and administrators to support the activities identified in the Master Plan. Year 1 Benchmark: Certificated and classified tech support providers will be hired to ensure that teachers and support staff receive training and support needed to use adopted systems effectively. Year 2 Benchmark: The district will develop a data warehouse linked to the Zangle SIS foundation, providing centralized reporting and analysis of data now spread across disparate systems within the district. Year 3 Benchmark: The district will ensure that teachers and support staff receive training and support needed to use integrated messaging and video distribution systems effectively . Evaluation Instrument(s): Schedule for Collection Person(s) Responsible Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process and Evaluation IS Director will monitor implementation and collect Ongoing IS Director feedback from principals and users. California School Technology Survey Annually Principals, IS Director, Tech Coordinator Instructional Technology Standards Committee evaluation Annually ITSC leadership
Notes: (a) Hands-on training opportunities targeted at the skills and applications used by teachers and by support staff are scheduled throughout the calendar year by the Learning and Teacher Department. Held at the Technology Center and at school lab locations, course offerings are available at no charge on 20 or more topics during each school term. Registration is encouraged for employees at all school locations to ensure that each staff member is prepared to increase student achievement and positively affect employee performance. (b) Equipment and application software supporting the districts adopted instructional and management programs will be purchased, installed, maintained and supported as described in Section 5b (above). Financial support for these ongoing responsibilities is included in projections shown in Section 6b (below). Reaching the ratios and training/support standards marked above (Objectives 5.C.1 5.C.4) will require an initial hardware augmentation to ensure that schools are properly equipped to begin this initiative, maintaining a credible replacement cycle using site budgets, and expanding training and support staff across the term of the plan. The district has made the investment in technology in 2008-10, funding over 3,000 additional computing devices without growing the number of technical staff to support the additional devices.
Year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 # of computers added 600 400 2600 # Alpha Smart Labs 800 800 90 # of document cameras, projectors 150 150 100 # of trainers/ technicians added 1 0 -1
39
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
750 500 750
0 0 0
200 100 100
0 0 1
5d. Description of the process that will be used to monitor whether the goals and benchmarks are being reached within the specified time frame.
The districts Instructional Technology Standards Committee, made up of representatives from schools, Learning Support Services, Information Services, Staff Development, Business and Operations, will be the forum for an annual review of the goals and objectives contained in the plan. The ITSC meets monthly to review data for all aspects of the plan, and will prepare an annual summary review of progress. All data and reports presented to the ITSC will be compiled by a representative subcommittee for presentation to the Cabinet and the Board of Trustees annually. Evaluations and other measurements described in the previous Goal and Objective charts (Section 5c) will be the responsibility of the individuals identified in the charts as the Person(s) Responsible.
6. FUNDING AND BUDGET COMPONENT

The district created an Organizational Structure Action Team during 2005-06 as an ongoing workgroup, noting two critical issues that relate directly to this Technology Master Plan: 1. Unless we find a way to have sufficient follow through on planning efforts and program evaluation, then our written, taught, and tested curriculum will not be completely aligned and adhered to throughout the system. 2. Unless we identify our district wide educational objectives/standards and focus on aligning our curriculum and program and dollars, we will not be able to guarantee all students a quality education. With these in mind, six questions are expected to guide all current and future acquisition decisions. 1. How does a technology purchase support the Technology Master Plan? 2. What alternatives were considered? 3. Why was this particular alternative selected? 4. What are the expected results and who will benefit? 5. Can we afford this both direct and indirect costs? 6. How will the selected alternative be supported? By whom? What current approved priorities must be adjusted?
6a. List of established and potential funding sources and cost savings, present and future.
The districts budget includes allocations to acquire the hardware, electronic learning resources, infrastructure, professional development, and the technical support necessary to implement the plan. The district is again evaluating the option of equipment leasing to help establish a regular
40
replacement cycle for high-use machines. Leasing could also curtail the pattern of boom or bust purchases, when grant money is used to acquire more computers than can be successfully integrated and supported in the schools long-term program. Within each years budget, one-time and ongoing costs have been identified. The Information Services department provides the technical resources and support necessary to operate all of the districts application systems (see Appendix C). Department staff is responsible for system configuration, installation and operation, and coordination of training and effective use of all district technology, computer hardware, software, and peripherals. There will be maintenance contracts to support core equipment and LAN needs. Central technology budget funds allocate $1.2M for department staff and $0.75M for operating and maintenance costs associated with: work site local area networks (LANs) and district wide area network (WAN) infrastructure for data, video, and voice, including wireless connectivity; network firewall, web filtering, SPAM e-mail filtering, and network bandwidth monitoring; Zangle student information system; Internet connections, collaborative portals, and electronic mail for all sites; data backup for individual users, servers and systems; and
support and maintenance for computers, printers, switches, routers, servers, anti-virus, and standard district software such as Microsoft Office. All technology used at schools and district administrative offices has been purchased with departmental or site-managed funds. Purchase decisions are made in the context of many competing priorities, and varies widely (see 2008 inventory, Appendix D). Site and departmental expenditures for technology since 2004 have averaged $2M annually 75 percent for hardware purchases, nearly all from restricted grant and categorical funds. In 2008-9, expenditures totaled $4.6M and in 2009-2010 expenditures on technology reached $7.2M. This was due mostly to the states school modernization funds that were made available for updating school equipment. While that one-time money was useful to bring schools up to date, now funding will be required to replace the equipment as it become antiquated. Additional funding sources need to be explored each year to identify potential outside resources for technology funding. Alternative sources of funding may be available through partnerships and grants, including: the Federal Title IID Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant program, California Department of Educations Education Technology Office website and listserv, subscriptions to the Technology Funding Directory, and the Grants and Funding for School Technology Conference. The complexity of pursuing these funding sources, as well as possible encroachment, need to be addressed and identified before funding applications are pursued. Issues such as matching funds, grant or partnership restrictions, reporting and other requirements all need to be taken into consideration. Due to limited personnel resources, the possibility of hiring an outside consultant may be a viable option in some cases, but it will have to be determined on a grant-by-grant basis. Some alternative funding sources appear to be stable and can be relied on to provide resources for at least the life of this plan. Economical access to network services is expected to continue to be available through the Californias K-12 High Speed Network (K12HSN). Also, the Settlement Agreement that resulted in the K12 Voucher program is expected to provide district schools with
41
vouchers valued at nearly $1,200,000 over the next five fiscal years. Half of the total amount will be in the form of General Purpose Vouchers and 50 percent will be in the form of Specific Category Software Vouchers. These funds are required to support the Technology Plan objectives.
6b. Estimate implementation costs for the term of the plan (3-5 years).
As a rule of thumb in budgeting for the Total Costs of Ownership over time, every dollar spent purchasing hardware or software should be matched by a dollar for staff training/support and another for installation, configuration, maintenance and repair. Comparing the Total Costs of Ownership of school districts and comparably-sized businesses, International Data Corporation reported that schools had "extremely low" levels of support, usually one person for every 500 computer users, in contrast with the 1:50 ratio found in the business environment. The state of Maryland recently completed a four-year educational technology plan with a funding projection that assumed that there would be one support person for every 500 PCs. The targeted 500:1 ratio of computers to field staff is currently 1700:1 in OMSD well beyond the goal. This ratio does not include such border devices as Nextel Blackberries, printers, interactive whiteboards, etcetera that also require support. Although OMSD is experiencing a prolonged decline in enrollment, the district is committed to maintaining high levels of support. The Information Services budget for the next three years reflects that commitment, as does the investment in ongoing training for the support staff and acquisition of a variety of powerful software tools that allow the staff to address many support issues remotely and more quickly. The District is committed to meeting the following funding benchmarks: 1. Basic technical support will continue. Based on current projections, the district intends to improve technical support during the next three years by funding the following central IS positions: Director, Technology Planning Coordinator, Network Engineer (2), Data Warehouse Administrator, IS Database Specialist, IS System Support Technicians (5), IS Software Support Technicians, IS Helpdesk Technician. 2. Support site budget managers in allocating funds to expand purchasing flexibility for technology. The Fiscal Services office will meet with site staff twice annually to review priorities and options necessary to ensure that each campus maintains the technology core necessary to support a consistently high level of student learning 3. Increase the operational technology funding to 2.0 percent of total district budget. It is expected that more than $4M will be required annually. Sites and departments have consistently spent more than $1M annually for technology. Federal technology grants from Title IID and subsidies secured through the Universal Access program called E-Rate have supplemented expenditures for network infrastructure, hardware, software, and professional development by an average of $1.5M annually. 4. Maintain current patterns of expenditure between departments, categorical funds, and general funds as well as their respective percentage of overall spending.
42
The following table represents the expected allocation for funding throughout the plan.
Projected expenditures Support staffing, includes Information Services staff compensation and stipends provided for occasional employees Hardware, includes PCs, printers, peripherals, and LAN/WAN components Software, includes licenses for both instructional and management support applications Professional development, includes Staff Development department employee compensation and stipends provided for occasional employees Funding source(s) Grants, general and categorical funds 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
1,550,000 Grants, e-rate, general and categorical funds Grants, general and categorical funds 325,000 Grants, categorical funds
1,650,000
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
300,000
300,000
525,000
525,000
525,000
6c. Description of the districts replacement policy for obsolete equipment.

With proper care, the life span of electronic computer equipment is four years, plus or minus one. Obsolescence come with time: (a) engineering advances, (b) basic operating systems change, (c) physical moving parts such as hard drives, power supplies, and fans fail, (d) batteries wear out. Laptop and notepad computers face significant physical wear and tear due to their portability and may last less than four years. Equipment will not be repaired when the cost of repair exceeds the value of the item. Surplus computers (with hard drives removed for destruction), monitors, printers, and other technology are disposed of by the district Warehouse. ShipNShred (http://www.shipnshred.com) provides secure, easy, and cost-effective destruction of dead or surplus hard drives after they are removed from computers, providing a Certificate of Destruction for compliance records.
6d. Description of the process that will be used to monitor Ed Tech funding, implementation costs and new funding opportunities and to adjust budgets as necessary.
Budget development and oversight is the responsibility of the Superintendents Cabinet and department Directors in Learning Support Services, Information Services, Staff Development, Business and Operations, and will be the forum for reviewing educational technology budgeting and funding opportunities. Based on the financial state of the state and district, technology initiatives will be evaluated and funded. Implementations costs are monitored by Business Services for district and site initiatives. Evaluations and other measurements described in the previous Goal and Objective charts (Section 5c) will be the responsibility of the individuals identified in the charts as the Person(s) Responsible.
43
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION COMPONENT

The districts commitment to reaching the objectives identified in this Master Plan reflects the belief that we will impact student learning and reach our sole purpose preparing students for the future. User involvement in the planning and standards-setting process helps ensure that technology priorities are aligned with school district priorities for student learning as outlined in the district Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is one feedback loop that the district uses to involve stakeholders, set objectives and create action plans to accomplish those goals. Management responsibility for reaching all of the outcomes identified in the Master Plan is shared across all administrative divisions: Administrative Services, Business Services, Human Resources, and Instructional Services. The Instructional Technology Standards Committee provides a monthly forum for reviewing reports on progress, problems, and options. Responsibility for effective follow-up remains with the Directors of Curriculum, of Information Services, Pupil Personnel Services (Special Education), and of Staff Development. Data collection, evaluation, and reporting targets in this Plan are detailed in the preceding Goal tables. Site and department-level users are further involved with technology through monthly TechNet meetings held from September to May when most schools are in session. TechNet is a forum for district and site technology users to exchange information, preview new technologies, and communicate. Monitoring and evaluating progress is critical to ensure proper implementation and make course corrections that may become necessary.
Monitoring and Evaluation activities: 7a. Description of the process for evaluating the plans overall progress and impact on teaching and learning.
Instructional staff will resume complete the annual EdTechProfile Survey to determine both student and staff growth and remaining needs. Additional data collection, evaluation, and reporting targets are detailed in the preceding Goal tables, pp.12-15. The Instructional Technology Standards Committee will meet monthly to review the planning, support, and training for educational technology and make recommendations to the Directors of Learning Support Services, of Information Services, Pupil Personnel Services (Special Education), and of Staff Development for program modifications.
7b.
Schedule for evaluating the effect of plan implementation.
Evaluation activities, detailed in the preceding Goal tables, are divided between quarterly and annual schedules to provide both formative and summative assessments. As noted, the Instructional Technology Standards Committee will meet monthly to review the planning, support, and training for educational technology the core of the formative evaluation process, and make recommendations to the Directors of Learning Support Service, of Information Services, Pupil Personnel Services (Special Education), and of Staff Development for program modifications. Reports on the organizational impact and on pupil achievement will be prepared for review by the Superintendents Cabinet. The Director of Information Services will monitor the acquisition of hardware, software, infrastructure, and technical support and other budgetrelated measures essential for implementing the plan and report to the Instructional Technology Standards Committee and Superintendents Cabinet.
44
7c. Description of how the information obtained through the monitoring and evaluation will be used.
Each October the Instructional Technology Standards Committee will review progress to date and consider the need for significant revisions to planned activities, schedules, or budgets. Recommendations for updates will be brought back to a general meeting of stakeholders for review, discussion, and approval prior to being presented to the Board of Trustees for adoption.
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.
Community Based English Tutoring The Extended Learning program provides students with additional time and experiences to interact, master, and expand access to the core curriculum. The district believes that student success is a partnership that actively involves parents in the educational process. The district provides a series of services to equip parents with the knowledge and skills to support learning. As a participant in the state CBET (Community Based English Tutoring) program, the district offers adults opportunities to study English as a second language, and emphasizes school community, curriculum standards and expectations, home learning environment, and parent tutoring skills. Many have continued on to complete high school equivalency General Education Degrees. Program Requirements. Goals established for the CBET program are: 1. Provide adult English language learners with a language acquisition and development program that supports academic achievement and is aligned to the district curriculum. 2. Empower adult English language learners with the knowledge and skills necessary to support school-age children through active tutoring strategies. Upon enrolling, each participating adult is asked to sign a Compact. This compact states that in return for receiving classes, the adult will support school-age children in their learning through tutoring. The adults may tutor their own children, family members, or neighbors. Instructional Program. A variety of classes are provided to address all levels of language proficiency, including listening, speaking, reading, and writing, based on the level and needs of the student. Learners also have access to computer-based instruction to supplement the direct instruction lessons. The district Technology Center is open to the community for classes. The Instructional Services division conducts an annual needs survey for each site to assess needs for homework assistance, college information, discipline, student motivation, and parent involvement in schools. The District Advisory Council (DAC) and the District English Language Advisory Council (DELAC) provide additional input from membership of school site councils. Collaborative Partners in Adult Literacy
45
OMSD has an agreement with Chaffey Joint Union High School District Adult Education to provide adult English as a Second Language (ESL) classes on school sites. Parent training and classes are also offered thorough the Montclair Community Collaborative and the Family Solutions Collaborative.
9. EFFECTIVE, RESEARCH BASED METHODS AND STRATEGIES

9a. Description of how education technology strategies and proven methods for student learning, teaching, and technology management are based on relevant research and effective practices.
When students write more frequently, their ability to think, reason, analyze, communicate, and perform on tests will improve. Writing is critical to student achievement. . .Whether the measure is against the frequency of writing, the frequency of writing assessment, or student performance on writing tests, all produce some of the highest correlation values we've seen with respect to results. (Reeves, 2007) Writing Next, the recently released meta-analysis from the Carnegie Corporation (Graham & Perin, 2007), makes 11 recommendations to improve the quality of student writing (Greiner 2007). Listed in order of greatest impact, research recommendations were: 1. Teach strategies - "Explicitly and systematically teaching steps necessary for planning, revising, and/or editing text" is the first recommendation. 2. Teach summarization - "Explicitly and systematically teaching students to summarize text" echoes Robert Marzano's endorsement of summarization as a high-yield strategy. 3. Have students write collaboratively - Working together in pairs or small groups to "plan, draft, revise, and edit their compositions" is especially effective for low-achieving writers. 4. Set goals - "Assigning students specific, reachable goals for their writing," as well as "identifying the purpose of the assignment [e.g., to persuade]" improves writing quality. 5. Use word processing - Allowing students to use word-processing equipment in every stage of the writing process is "especially effective in enhancing the quality of text produced by low-achieving writers." 6. Practice sentence-combining - "Teaching students to construct more complex and sophisticated sentences" enhances the quality of their writing. 7. Use prewriting - Creating a prewriting organizer consistently before the first draft "improves the quality of [students'] writing." 8. Use inquiry activities - "Involving students in writing activities designed to sharpen their inquiry skills improves the quality of their writing." 9. Use process writing - "Emphasizing real audiences, extending opportunities for writing, and providing opportunities to self-reflect" are key components for instruction. 10. Look at exemplars - Students are encouraged to analyze "good models for each type of writing" and to "emulate the critical elements in their own writing." Quick reads of good
46
examples are not enough. Instead, students need to tear the examples apart until they can identify the specific tools the writer used to build the strong piece of writing. 11. Write in the content areas - Writing across the curriculum in all content areas is once again strongly supported by research. This Plan builds on that foundation. Identifying best practices and understanding the underlying cause-effect dynamics also depends on collecting data and using effective analytic strategies. Use of the DataDirector application will provide teachers and instructional managers with essential tools. Citations to research that supports other specific strategies and programs have been provided where appropriate throughout the Plan. References are listed pp.48-49.
9b. Description of plans to use technology to extend or supplement the districts curriculum with rigorous academic courses and curricula, including distancelearning technologies.
Teaching students how to read about, watch, interpret, understand and analyze media-delivered data is of vital importance. Recognizing that many district students don't have computers at home, and that parents may not be experienced enough with computers to support them, the accepted goal here is providing the support they need at school, both between the bells marking the standard school day, and through extended-day learning opportunities and the SharePoint web portal. Web-based software for both instruction and assessment is implemented for students at several schools including Study Island and Accelerated Reader. Schools will be moving to the webbased model of Scholastics Read 180 beginning in July 2011 allowing for the option of using the program anytime, anywhere. This Technology Master Plan envisions a powerful network linking schools and the community, supported by the professional development necessary for effective implementation. Networkbased services are expected to augment the attainment of essential grade level standards, and to extend students reach beyond minimal proficiencies, ensuring access to rigorous academic courses and curricula through online learning, collaborative projects, distance education or virtual field trips resources that can be effectively coordinated via the SharePoint web portal. This plan requires a strong technology infrastructure, broader deployment of hardware and application software, and improving teachers skills to ensure that our students successfully bridge the divide that has too often limited economic and political participation by their parents. The network establishes an infrastructure to support teachers attainment of the ISTE national technology standards.
47
References
Brockett, R. G. & Hiemstra, R. (2004). Toward Ethical Practice. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. Bosco, James (2006). Tools, Culture, and Education: Past - Present - Future, Global Summit 2006, Sydney, Australia, October, 2006. http://homepages.wmich.edu/~bosco/JBosco_GS2006.pdf California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2002). Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs. http://www.ccbtsa.org/pdfs/ProgStndrds.pdf Consortium for School Networking (CoSN): Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). http://classroomtco.cosn.org/gartner_intro.html Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) Executive Summary: Collaboration in K-12 Schools: Anywhere, Anytime, Any Way http://cosn.org/resources/emerging_technologies/collaboration.cfm Consortium for School Networking (CoSN): Educational Technologies: Emerging Technologies http://cosn.org/resources/emerging_technologies/index.cfm Consortium for School Networking (CoSN): CoSN Releases New Report for Educators Exploring the Use of Collaborative Technologies to Enhance Education http://cosn.org/about/press/090806.cfm Datnow, Amanda, Park, Vicki, & Wohlstetter, Priscilla (2007). Achieving with Data: How highperforming school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education University of Southern California. (p 4748). http://www.newschools.org/viewpoints/ideas_at_work.htm Doyle, Christina A. (1992). Final Report to the National Forum on Informational Literacy (Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources, ED351033). Dugger, Meade, Delaney, Nichols, Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy, Phi Delta Kappan; December 2003, p. 316-317. Eisenberg, Daniel (2005). Ambition and Kids: How to Help Them Succeed, Time (Nov 6, 2005). http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1126743,00.html Graham, Steve & Perin, Dolores, Writing Next: Effective Strategies To Improve Writing Of Adolescents In Middle And High Schools, Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2007. http://www.all4ed.org/files/WritingNext.pdf Greiner, Alice (2007). 11 Research-Based Tips for Improving Writing Instruction, The Center for Performance Assessment. http://www.wuhsd.k12.ca.us/8117310271173/lib/8117310271173/Microsoft_Word__11_Research_based_tips_for_improving_writing.pdf
48
High Tech High Charter School: Project-Based Learning and Integrated Curriculum. A Planning Workshop for High Tech High Learning Sites. http://www.hightechhigh.org/resourcecenter/Curriculum/Curric-HTH%20Guide%20to%20PBL.pdf Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (1998). American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Lazarus, Wendy and Wainer, Andrew with Lipper, Laurie (2005). Measuring Digital Opportunity for America's Children: Where We Stand and Where We Go From Here. The Childrens Partnership, Santa Monica, CA. http://www.childrenspartnership.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Technology&Template=/CM/C ontentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=1089 Library Skills to Information Literacy a handbook for the 21st century (1997). California School Library Association, Hi Willow Research and Publishing, San Jose; 2nd Edition. Meacham, Jack (2006). Questioning the Best Learning Technology, Peer Review, 8(4), 30. http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-fa06/pr-fa06_realitycheck.cfm U.S. Department of Education (2010). National Educational Technology Plan 2010 Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 The New Media Consortium, EDUCAUSE (2010). The HORIZON Report. http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2010-Horizon-Report.pdf Perelman, Lewis J. School's Out: Hyperlearning, the New Technology, and the End of Education. New York: Avon Books, 1992. Reeves, Douglas B. (2002). Accountability-based reforms should lead to better teaching and learning period. Harvard Education Newsletter. http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2002-ma/reeves.shtml Reeves, Douglas B. (2007). New Writing Institute, press release, June 5, 2007 www.vantagelearning.com/corporate/news/press_releases/20070605-1.html Schacter, John (1999). The Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement: What the Most Current Research Has to Say. Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Santa Monica, CA, 1999. http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. WHAT WORK REQUIRES OF SCHOOLS: A SCANS REPORT FOR AMERICA 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 1991. http://wdr.doleta.gov/opr/fulltext/document.cfm?docn=6140 Steinberg, Adria. (1996) Real Learning, Real Work. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/framewk/sys/comm/syscomra.htm Total Cost of Ownership Checklist: Replacement Costs - Computers Dont Last Forever. http://classroomtco.cosn.org/checklist/replacement_costs.html
49
Appendix I Education Technology Plan Benchmark Review Education Technology Plan Benchmark Review (page 1)
For the grant period ending June 30, 2012
California Department of Education Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) Education Technology Plan Benchmark Review EETT-F02BR (rev. 09/04) EETT-F02BR
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:
CDS #: 36-67819 Applicant Name: ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT

The No Child Left Behind Act requires each Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant recipient to measure the performance of their educational technology implementation plan. To adhere to these requirements, describe the progress towards the goals and benchmarks in your education technology plan as specified below. The information provided will enable the technology plan reviewer better to evaluate the revised technology plan and will serve as a basis should the district be selected for a random EETT review. Include this signed document with your revised education technology plan submitted to your regional California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP) office. 1. Describe your districts progress in meeting the goals and specific implementation plan for using technology to improve teaching and learning as described in Section 3.d., Curriculum Component Criteria, of the EETT technology plan criteria described in Appendix C. (1-3 paragraphs) Ensure equitable student access to computers and technology-based instruction: computers, video technologies and Internet access. This objective has not been met. Depending on the school, the average number of students expected to share access to a computer ranges from 3 to 20+. Although high speed network connections have been installed in nearly every classroom, significant variance continues to limit student's use of computers, particularly at 10 elementary and 2 middle schools. Student assignments in most classrooms do not regularly require the use of technology. Even upper-grade projects in history/social science, math and science are often done without word processing or charting software. Access to technology in most site libraries or labs is not generally available to students before or after school. Provide personal computer and network access for every teacher and each support employee who needs access to communication and data management systems. This objective was not met. Annual technology allocations were reduced by more than $500,000. The district rejected a proposed lease-based replacement cycle that would have embedded procurement costs as a recurring budget item, ensuring that work stations were regularly updated. Although broadband network connections have been installed in nearly every classroom, significant differences in access to end-user devices continue to limit employee's use of computers at 10 elementary and 2 middle schools. Seventy-five percent of classroom teachers will utilize technology based diagnostic and record keeping tools to improve student achievement. This objective has been met. The district has implemented DataDirector for benchmark testing in reading and math at grades kindergarten through eight. Describe your districts progress in meeting the goals and specific implementation plan for providing professional development opportunities based on the needs assessment and the Curriculum Component goals, benchmarks and timeline as described in Section 4.b., Professional Development Component Criteria, of the EETT technology plan criteria described in Appendix C. (1-3 paragraphs)
2.
50
Staff will develop the personal technology proficiency, knowledge and skills required to accomplish student curriculum and learning goals, and will effectively utilize technology as a management and assessment tool. Both the skill level and the types of technology in use vary across the district, depending to a great extent on the individual users access to and personal proficiency with both hardware and applications. All administrators were found to use e-mail regularly. Usage of core data analysis systems such as DataDirector, adopted for use by all schools, is more prolific than the past Oracle DataMart or ETS IDMS. Recent survey data reveal a wide range of proficiency levels from low introductory levels to proficient, indicating the continuing need for professional growth opportunities designed for learners at all levels. The applicant certifies that the information described above is accurate as of the date of this document. Should the applicant be selected for a random EETT review, the information stated above will be supported by adequate supporting documentation.
As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, I hereby certify that the applicant will comply with the above certifications.
Jeremy Wood Technology Planning Coordinator

TITLE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
_ _
PRINTED NAME OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
__________________________ ___________
SIGNATURE DATE
51
APPENDIX J Contact Information
County & District Code: 36-67819 LEA Name: Ontario-Montclair School District
Salutation: Mr. First Name: Jeremy Last Name: Wood Job Title: Technology Planning Coordinator Address: 950 W. D Street City: Ontario Zip Code: 91762 Telephone: 909-418-6596 Email: jeremy.wood@omsd.k12.ca.us
Please provide backup contact information.
1st Backup Name: Dick Archibald-Woodward 1st Backup Email: dick.aw@omsd.k12.ca.us 2nd Backup Name: John Weedston 2nd Backup Email: john.weedston@omsd.k12.ca.us
52
Appendix A: District Network 2008 Configuration and Service 53
Network Infrastructure Purchases For 2011 - 2014

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 20112012 2012-13 2013-14
System-wide
routers, fiber circuits
upgrade Lightspeed system, site servers, deploy SSL
server upgrades, wireless, server & client virtualization
switch upgrade, Gigabit operation
fiber to support VoIP, VoIP PBXs
Elementary Schools
Arroyo Berlyn Bon View Buena Vista Central Corona Del Norte Edison El Camino Elderberry Euclid Hawthorne Haynes Howard Kingsley Lehigh Lincoln Linda Vista Mariposa Mission Montera Monte Vista Moreno Ramona Sultana Vineyard Vista Grande switches wireless switches switches cabling, switches switches wireless lab cabling, wireless switches, wireless cabling, switches switches wireless switches switches wireless switches switches switches wireless lab wireless switches switches switches switches switches switches wireless wireless switches switches switches wireless wireless switches wireless switches wireless switches switches wireless switches wireless switches switches switches switches switches switches wireless lab cabling lab cabling wireless switches wireless switches switches wireless switches switches switches switches
Middle Schools
De Anza Oaks Serrano Vernon Vina Danks Wiltsey
54
Appendix D: Computer Inventory 2008
Business Centers
HFB District Office Hardy Center Food & Nutrition Transportation/Whse switches switches switches switches switches, VoIP switches
55
The district supports and manages 100 specialized computer servers including: Student Information System Applications o PCS/Food Services o TranTrack/Field Trip Planning o Destiny/Centralized Textbook and Library System o Special Education Information System (SEIS)/through WESELPA o Zangle/Student Information System o Illuminate Business Applications o Mainsaver/Workorder System o Subfinder/Substitute Management System o Viatron MediaStor/Document Imaging Server o FAS/Fixed Asset and Inventory System o Exchange/e-mail o Microsoft Office SharePoint Server o Blackberry Enterprise Server o File server Network Security o Lightspeed/Content Filtering/Spam Filter/Web Reporting o Internal and External DNS Network Management o CommVault/System Wide Backup o Microsoft Updates and Antivirus Updates o Altiris/Helpdesk/Desktop Management Classroom Applications o Read 180 o Renaissance Accelerated Reader/Accelerated Math o Classroom Grade Book o Lexia
Appendix C: District-supported Software Applications 2007-08
56
Updated by October, 2010

Classrms w/Internet Arroyo Berlyn Bon View Buena Vista Central Corona De Anza Del Norte Edison El Camino Elderberry Euclid Hawthorne Haynes Howard Kingsley Lehigh Lincoln Mariposa Mission Monte Vista Montera Moreno Oaks Ramona Serrano Sultana Vernon Vina Danks Vineyard Vista Grande Wiltsey 23 34 32 16 33 32 32 37 24 32 31 29 33 32 27 32 32 34 38 35 27 27 25 38 33 31 48 34 44 25 23 31 PCs in classrms 124 181 195 104 100 293 218 171 102 111 111 118 200 104 143 159 360 125 150 300 84 216 101 217 84 193 438 157 344 248 123 249 Admin support 8 10 12 10 15 12 19 13 11 6 9 1 10 8 11 14 13 4 13 10 9 10 15 17 13 14 14 20 12 7 9 25 Tech Lab no 36 29 44 no no no no no 12 33 5 24 no 13 20 132 0 0 120 32 0 60 32 0 45 34 30 134 32 81 40 PCs in library 30 5 0 1 62 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 0
15
Laptops on carts 60 60 60 30 60 105 88 60 60 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 30 60 60 60 0 105 0 60 60 60 150 60 60 105 60 60
CBEDS enrollment
student:PC ratio 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.0 6.7 2.3 2.8 4.5 6.4 5.1 7.0 5.3 3.8 8.3 4.4 5.1 2.1 4.7 5.6 2.5 8.4 2.7 5.4 4.2 8.8 3.8 2.0 5.1 3.0 2.8 4.4 2.9
526 731 753 419 668 660 610 776 654 563 772 624 750 859 626 813 758 589 843 743 708 586 548 917 741 729 857 797 1046 691 540 723
3 0 0 0 25 0 0 15 60 2 0 2 6 6 19 0 2
57
Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014 PCs in classrooms Briggs Center Food/Nutrition Hardy Center Warehouse Transportation PCs in offices 312 62 79 4 8 Classrooms w/Internet CBEDS enrollment student:PC ratio
58
Appendix E: National Educational Technology Standards for Students 59

Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT

TECHNOLOGY MASTER PLAN

James Q. Hammond, Ed.D. Superintendent

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

VISION Reemphasis on Information Literate Students

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Members of the Technology Master Plan Work Group

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

3. LEARNING AND TEACHING

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Lab 0 36 0 44 0 0 0 0 12 33 5 24 0 16 20 132 0 0 120 32 0 60 0 34 32

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Vista Grande De Anza Oaks Serrano Vernon Vina Danks Wiltsey

123 218 217 193 157 344 249

After School No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes

Other No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No

No No No Yes Yes, sometimes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No

No Yes No Yes Yes No

No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Mentors, site webmasters Tech Coordinator, Director II - STEM

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Utilizing technology to improve two-way communication between home and school.

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Completion Date Ongoing throughout each school year

Ongoing to address each BTSA cohort Ongoing

Ongoing July 2011

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

assist staff with DataDirector application.

4c. Process to monitor professional development goals and activities

5. INFRASTRUCTURE, HARDWARE, TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND SOFTWARE COMPONENT

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Level Middle schools

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

Level District Office