Education Technology Plan Review System

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Education Technology Plan Review System"


1 Education Technology Plan Review System Contact Information County Code : School Code : N.A. LEA Name: San Francisco County Office of Education Salutation:* First Name:* Last Name:* Job Title:* Address:* City:* Mr. Matthew Kinzie Chief Technology Officer 601 McAllister Street San Francisco Zip Code:* Telephone:* Fax: * Please provide backup contact information. 1st Backup Name: 1st Backup 2nd Backup Name: 2nd Backup Dr. John Rubio Daisy Htun

2 Education Technology Plan Review System Contact Information District Code : School Code : N.A. LEA Name: San Francisco Unified School District Salutation:* First Name:* Last Name:* Job Title:* Address:* City:* Mr. Matthew Kinzie Chief Technology Officer 601 McAllister Street San Francisco Zip Code:* Telephone:* Fax: * Please provide backup contact information. 1st Backup Name: 1st Backup 2nd Backup Name: 2nd Backup Dr. John Rubio Daisy Htun

3 San Francisco Unified School District and San Francisco County Office of Education Access and Equity Student Achievement Accountability Draft Board of Education Mr. Norman Yee, President Ms. Rachel Norton, Vice-President Ms. Sandra Fewer Ms. Kim-Shree Maufas Ms. Hydra Mendoza Dr. Emily M. Murase Ms. Jill Wynns Superintendent Dr. Carlos Garcia

4 Table of Contents Technology Plan Components Page Components 1 & 2 Plan Duration and Stakeholders 3 Introduction 3 Purpose of the Master Instructional Technology Plan 3 1, Duration of the Plan 3 Planning Process 4 2. Stakeholders 4 Component 3 Curriculum 3A. Student and Teacher Access to Technology 5 3B. Current Use of Technology 11 3C. 18 Curriculum Goals, Objectives, Benchmarks, Implementation Plan and Timeline 3D. Technology to Improve Teaching and Learning 22 3E. Technological and Information Literacy Skills 23 3F. Appropriate and Ethical Use of Information Technology 24 3G. Internet Safety 25 3H. Equitable Technology Access for All Students 26 3I. Student Record Keeping and Assessment 28 3J. Utilization of Technology to Improve Two-Way Communication between Home 30 and School 3K. Monitoring and Evaluation 31 Component 4 Professional Development 32 4A. Current Technology Proficiency and Integration Skills and Professional Development Needs 32 4B. Professional Development Goals, Objectives, Benchmarks, Implementation Plan and Timeline 4B1. Staff Technology Proficiency 40 4B2. Aligning Technology with the 21 st Century Curriculum Initiative 41 4B3. Developing Technology and Information Literacy, Ethical and Safe Use of 43 Technology Skills 4B4. Use of Data to Improve Instruction 44 4B5. Use of Technology to Improve Two-Way Home-School Communications 46 4C. Monitoring and Evaluation 47 Component 5 Infrastructure, Hardware, Software and Technical Support 47 5A. Existing Hardware, Internet Access, Electronic Resources and Technical Support 47 5B. Hardware, Internet Access, Electronic Resources and Technical Support Needed to Support 51 Curriculum and Professional Development 5C. Infrastructure, Hardware, Electronic Resources and Technical Support Benchmarks and 55 Timeline 5C1. Hardware Benchmarks and Timeline 55 5C2. Infrastructure Benchmarks and Timeline 56 5C2.1. Internet Access 56 5C2.2. Network 56 5C3. Electronic Resources Benchmarks and Timeline 57 1 Page

5 5C3.1. Data Director 57 5C3.2. Student Data Redesign Project 57 5C3.3. Program management Systems 57 5C4.Technical Support Benchmarks 58 5D. Monitoring and Evaluation 58 Component 6 Funding and Budget 59 Introduction 59 6A. Established and Potential Funding Sources and Cost Savings 60 6B. Estimated Implementation Costs 64 Annual Budget Projections C. Computer Replacement and Obsolescence Policies 69 6D. Monitoring Process for Funding and Budget 69 Component 7 Monitoring and Evaluation 70 7A. Teaching and 70 Learning 7B. Schedule for Evaluating the Effect of Plan Implementation 71 7C. Process and Frequency of Communicating Results to Stakeholders 72 Component 8 Collaborative Strategies for Adult Literacy 72 Component 9 Effective Researched-Based Methods, Strategies and Criteria 73 9A. Relevant Research to Support Curriculum and Professional Development 73 9B.Technology to Extend Distance Learning Opportunities 77 Appendix A. Stakeholders 78 2 Page

6 INTRODUCTION San Francisco is unique in that it is both the City and County of San Francisco. The established governing body, the Board of Education, is responsible for administering both the District and the San Francisco County Office of Education. The addresses both the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education (SFCOE). San Francisco Unified School District: Founded in 1851, San Francisco Unified School District educates approximately 55,000 of San Francisco's pre-k, elementary, middle and high school students at thirty early education centers, 103 K-12 schools and eleven charter schools. San Francisco County Office of Education: The COE provides services to 710 students and operates four school programs that are located at eight county/court schools: Special Education, Juvenile Court, Alternative Opportunity and County Community School. Purpose of the Master Plan: San Francisco Unified School District Master Plan for Instructional Technology ) provides a district-wide vision for how technology will be embedded into the Strategic PlanBeyond the Talk. Simply put, the Master Plan is a strategic document 1 that provides a vision for instructional technology in the schools and a roadmap for moving the District and the COE towards that vision over the next three years. In addition to creating a common vision to guide the use of resources, the Master Plan for Instructional Technology fulfills federal and state requirements for a state-approved three year technology plan. The Technology Plan is aligned with the California Department of Education and meets the requirements of the federal e-rate program. COMPONENT 1 PLAN DURATION CRITERION (1. years.) Plan Duration: The Master Plan is a three-year strategic plan for the period July 1, 2012 through June 30, N.B.: Based on this, the district will prepare an annual implementation plan and budget that reflects progress over the previous year and available resources. While the plan proposes an annual timeline for implementat-12 education in general and for technology in particular. Strategies outlined for year one, for example, should occur before those identified for years two and three. 3 Page

7 COMPONENT 2 STAKEHOLDERS CRITERION (2. Description of how a variety of stakeholders from within the school district and the community at large participated in the planning process.) Planning Process The District Strategic Plan: To create the district Beyond the Talk, (2008) the district engaged school reform leaders and held a series of community conversations with small groups that involved over one thousand people to identify not just the challenges in education but to get at the root causes of the deep disparities in student achievement in SFUSD. The San Francisco Unified School District sees the achievement gap as the greatest social justice/civil rights issue facing our country today; there cannot be justice for all (Carlos Garcia, Superintendent, 2009) The five year Strategic Plan, and the recent updates to that document, and the grew out of this research and focuses all resources on achievement for all students. This Master Plan for Instructional Technology is driven by the Strategic Plan and is informed by the same ongoing research, school community input and best practices that gave shape to the Strategic Plan. Planning Process : Needs Assessment: input from stakeholders: The San Francisco Unified School District Beyond the Talk (2008) Beyond the Talk, Version 2, Implementation Update0) February 11, 2012 Progress reports on the implementation of the Strategic Plan The San Francisco Unified School District LEA Program Improvement Plan (2011) The San Francisco County Office of Education LEA Plan Addendum, Data Director data system, and School Loop (a teacher, student and parent portal). Interviews with Board of Education members, district and site leadership and union representatives Planning meetings with a cadre of classroom and technology/library media teachers and the Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG) Participation in Development Leadership and principals. The District Teacher Technology Survey completed by 2565 of 3219 teachers in the District and COE January Research of the literature on best practices Stakeholder Criterion: The Technology Plan for is essentially an extension of the Technology Plan. During there was extensive outreach to the schools and 2 N.B. The number of teachers completing the survey increased from 2565 to 2633 after the data was analyzed for this Plan pk-12 4 Page

8 the broader school community that resulted in significant consensus on both the Strategic Plan and the vision for technology in support of that plan. The emphasis of the planning process in 2012 was to align the Technology Plan as envisioned for with the districtent curriculum priorities and the implementation plans for Therefore, the focus of the planning was on district leadership, individuals responsible for the current priorities, and the principals and teachers who are integrating these initiatives into their instructional practices. Stakeholders Involvement in the Planning Process Technology Planning Team oversaw the planning process, conducted interviews and prepared drafts of the Technology Plan. Daisy Htun Project Manager, ITD 3 Matt Kinzie, Chief Information Officer, ITD Dr. John Rubio, Supervisor, Educational Technology, C & I 4 Kathleen Schuler, Consultant Technology Planning Committee: The Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG) and a group of twenty teachers represented their respective schools and programs and met to make recommendation to the Planning Team and review the draft documents. ITAG will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Technology Plan for Interviews: In addition the Planning Committee conducted over 28 interviews with curriculum and district leadership, attended meetings of administrators Stakeholder Meetings: The Planning Team participated in the Fall All Administrators meeting and a meeting of principals. In addition, the team made presentations to the Instructional Survey: 94% of all PK-12 teachers completed the district Teacher Technology Survey. Review of Draft Documents: All stakeholders were invited to review and give feedback on the draft Technology Plan prior to its submission to the Cabinet and the draft Technology Plan was posted on the district web site for broader community input. (Please see Appendix A for a complete list of Stakeholders by name and title who were involved in the planning process.) COMPONENT 3. CURRICULUM 3A. STUDENT AND TEACHER ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY: (3a. and outside of school hours.) District Teacher Technology Survey: 85% or classroom teachers responded to the District Technology Survey by January 31, All schools 3 Information Technology Department 4 Curriculum and Instruction 5 The number of respondents increased from 2565 to 2633 teachers or 87% after the survey data was analyzed for this Plan. 5 Page

9 participated, with sixty schools having 100% participation. The lowest participation level was by Early Education teachers. If only K-12 teachers were counted, participation rate rose to 95%. The teachers responding represent the overall distribution of teachers by grade level the overall district and COE. Data from this survey will be referenced throughout the plan. Chart 1 Percent of Teacher Respondents by Grade Level (District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565) Early education/pk Elementary Middle K-8 High K-12 Other Current Student/Teacher Access to Computers: Teachers in the survey reported a total of 7191 instructional computers purchased by the schools and departments: 5138 desktops, 1706 laptops, 35 tablets and 312 netbooks. 7 In addition, 781 teachers reported having a total of 4209 donated computers. This number does not include the 920 personal computers teachers have brought into the classroom. 450 teachers reported having no computers in their classrooms, and 1138 have only computers older than four years of age. Based on the number of computers reported on the survey, the average student to computer ratio is 4.9 to 1. The teachers identified the models for 4806 of the computers in their classrooms of which 60% were over four years of age. Based on that average, it is estimated that a minimum of 60% of all classroom computers are over four years of age. All students have access to these instructional computers, including Special Education (SPED) and English Language Learner (ELL) students in general education classes. The percent of computers with Internet connectivity is not known. However, the district is now conducting walk-throughs of all the schools to assess the status of classroom connectivity to the Internet. All classroom computers will have broadband connectivity by the end of year 1 of this plan. 6 7 The district does not have an accurate database on the number of computers in the classroom. The findings from the District Teacher Technology Survey are the best estimates now available. 6 Page

10 School Level Chart 2: Number of Computers and Student to Computer Ratios (District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N= ) Total District Computers Donated # Computers 9 Computers > 4 Years Old (60%) # of Students Student:Computer Ratio (All Computers Student:Computer Ratio Computers < 5 Years Old Elementary Middle High Total Chart 3: Number of Computers by Grade Level Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N = Netbooks or tablets Desktops Laptops 0 Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Chart 4: Percentage of Total Computers at Each Grade Level Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N = 2550 Total reported computers = % 41% Elementary Schools Middle Schools 21% High Schools 8 The number of respondents varied for some questions in the survey. 9 The age of donated computers was not identified on the survey. We have conservatively estimated that the percent of both district funded and donated computers over four years of age is 60%, although anecdotal information suggests donated computers are generally older than district purchased ones. 10 Includes both K-5 and K-8 schools 7 Page

11 Access to Other Technologies: In the District Teacher Technology Survey 2565 teachers identified what other technology they had in their classrooms. The chart below indicates a significant number of teachers have printers, projectors and wireless connectivity in their classrooms while the number of interactive whiteboards has increased from 40 in 2009 to 337 or 13% of the classrooms in While the interactive whiteboards are very new, many teachers reported that their printers and projectors were old and/or unreliable. Chart 5: Percent of Teachers with Other Technology in their Classrooms (District Teacher Technology Survey; n=2565) 70% 60% 60% 50% 49% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 41% 13% 7% The distribution of technology across the grade levels also varies significantly. For example, projectors and interactive whiteboards are more concentrated in middle and high schools than in early education, elementary and K-8 schools. Chart 6: Percent of Teachers with Other Technology in Their Classrooms by Grade Level (District Teacher Technology Survey; N = 2565) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% K-12 High K-8 Middle Elementary Early education 8 Page

12 Access to Instructional Media: Chart 7 identifies district licenses for software and other electronic resources 11 that have been acquired for teacher and student use. Chart 7: Software and On-Line Resources Licensed by the District Microsoft Office Word All Excel All Access Select staff PowerPoint All Microsoft Outlook & Outlook Web Access Administrators, teachers Microsoft SharePoint Administrators, teachers School Loop K-12 students, teachers, administrators, parents Data Director data management system K-12 teachers, administrators Student Information Systems (Synergy/SIS, SEIS for special education) K-12 classified staff, administrators, teachers ConnectEDU 9-12 teachers and students Culture Grams K-8 teachers and students Cyber High online courses 9-12 students Destiny Library Automation System K-12 students and teachers Drop Out Prevention Early Warning System 9-12 teachers, counselors 9-12 teachers and students Follett ebook Shelves K-8 teachers and students Noodle Tools 6-12 teachers and students Odysseyware online curriculum Students in 14 middle/high schools San Francisco Public Library Online K-12 teachers and students Science Online 6-12 teachers and students SIRS Issues Researcher 9-12 teachers and students Teaching Books K-12 students and teachers K-12 teachers, students World Book Online K-12 teachers and students The 2010 EETT Competitive ARRA grant was used to extend the new mandatory ninth grade Plan Ahead college career curriculum 12 to a digital online platform and create student data-based digital portfolios and web reports. A portion of the funds also supported the acquisition of a data-based Dropout Prevention Early Warning System that will be pushed out to all students, teachers, counselors and administrators over the next three years. Site Licensed Software: In addition to the district licensed resources in Chart 7, school sites and various departments have acquired a variety of electronic learning resources. Based on recent invoices and on reports from the Survey, schools have purchased or are utilizing software for the following purposes: Plan Ahead developed in partnership with Pearson Foundation, Gap Foundation and Hirsch and Associates 13 Listed programs are examples only. 9 Page

13 Chart 8: School Site Acquired Software and Electronic Resources Purpose Sample Software CAHSEE preparation Study Island, ALEKS Collaboration Tools WIKIs, Google Docs Curriculum delivery systems Starfall for early readers, KUTA math, Kahn Academy English Learners support English Now, English 3D, Grammar Gallery, High Point electronic resources and e- assessment Graphics software KidPix, PhotoShop Elements Integrated learning and Renaissance Learning, READ 180 assessment systems Interventions Achieve 3000, Waterford Early Literacy Reading Program, Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Math, Cognitive Tutor for Algebra support., READ 180, Momentum Math for middle schools Learning enhancement BrainPop, Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY), Renzulli Learning System Problem solving software Fathom, Geometers Sketchpad Publishing software PageMaker, Boardmaker, Adobe Creative Suite, Adobe Photoshop, Blogs Special Education student ComicLife, RTI software, Augmentative and support Alternative Communications tools Web authoring Adobe Dreamweaver, VoiceThread Teaching and Learning Filemaker Pro/ACCESS, Enchanted Learning, Resources: National Library of Congress, PBS websites, FOSS web resources, You Tube, videostreaming sites. In the District Teacher Technology Survey, 449 teachers recommended 413 different electronic resources that they are either using now or in the past in the classroom. Indicating the need for greater outreach, only eleven of the 449 teachers referenced at least one of the district licensed library resources. There has been a reduction in the number of district licenses over the last three years due to budget limitations, although the goal is to move towards district licensing once the LAN upgrades are completed in Most current licenses are purchased by the school sites or, in some cases, by individual departments for specific student populations. There is no centralized inventory of the software schools have acquired nor how those resources are being used. There are also no standards, criteria or guidelines for the selection of software to make sure the resource is instructionally valid and can be supported by the district hardware and infrastructure. This pattern makes it difficult to deliver professional development and support, creates inequitable access for teachers and students, and requires students to learn different tools as they progress through school rather than using a core set of tools to engage in more complex learning over time. Extended Access to Technology by Teachers: The 30% of teachers with district-purchased laptops may use the laptops outside of school, and some schools loan technology, such as digital 10 P age

14 cameras, to teachers. Approximately 35% of teachers reported using their own personal computers in their classrooms. Extended Access to Technology for Students and Their Families: Many before- and afterschool programs offer technology training to students and families: Beacon Centers: The Beacon Centers at sixteen schools are open year-round, before and after school, evenings and on weekends and offer a variety of services to children and families including access to computers and the Internet. Additional After School Programs: Ninety schools have site based after school programs funded by 21st Century Community Learning Centers and After-School Education and Safety grants, many of which include computer and video training or access to school labs. School Libraries: Some libraries in secondary schools are open before school, during lunch and after school staffed by library media teachers while others fund support staff to keep libraries open during extended hours. Public Libraries: All San Francisco public libraries have public computer centers and are open after school and on weekends. The district has partnered with libraries to enable library staff to help parents register for and use School Loop and other district resources. Other Community Centers: Community computer programs are located throughout San Francisco that offer free access to technology and computer training programs for children and their families, including the Ark of Refuge Youth MAP, Arriba Juntos, Boys and Girls Club Centers, the Embarcadero YMCA, JVS Technology Access Centers, Booker T. Washington Center, and the Community Youth Center. San Francisco Housing Authority: Starting in 2008 the San Francisco Housing Authority placed computer labs in sixteen housing projects. 3B. CURRENT USE OF TECHNOLOGY: (3b.Description of the dis use of hardware and software to support teaching and learning.) Technology Use by Students and Teachers Teacher Technology Survey Findings: 46.7% of the teachers use Word and 70.7% use everyday compared to creating a PowerPoint (10.2%) and using videos from You Tube at the same frequency. In fact, the most frequently requested technology proficiency training requested was for PowerPoint (see Chart 9 on the next page). 11 P age

15 Chart 9: Frequency of Use of Basic Technology Tools (District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Word to create documents Use Create a PPT Use You Tube Rarely or never Once a Mon. Once a week Everyday The vast majority of the teachers reported using technology to prepare instructional materials (92%), to research or find resources for assignments (91%) and to submit grades and perform classroom management functions (82%). Less than 50% reported using technology to support student problem solving, teach student information literacy skills or to create effective learning environments. Chart 10: Percentage of Teachers Using Technology for Instruction (District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 92% 91% 82% 64% 63% 56% 48% 47% 43% Prepare Instructional Materials 2. Research or find resources for assignments 3. Grade Submission/Classroom Management 4. Presentations to Class 5. Student Practice/Remediation 6. Support Student Research 7. Support Student Problem Solving 8. Teach Student Information Literacy Skills 9. Create Effective Learning Environments 12 P age

16 However, when teachers were asked how often they gave assignments that required students to use technology, only 24% reported do that on a daily or weekly basis. Chart 11. Frequency of Teachers Giving Assignments Requiring Student Use of Technology (District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 26% 20% 15% 16% 17% 7% When asked what kept them from using technology more frequently over 72% reported that their adequate technology skills and 40% felt there the classroom was noted by 47% of technology for student use he need for additional training was reported by a lower percentage of teachers. 28% felt they needed to become more comfortable with technology while 33% wanted more support using technology in the classroom. This question generated a great deal of discussion, however, and over 380 teachers added optional comments. While these responses are still being analyzed, the majority were related to the lack of access to upto-date, reliable technology by the teachers and the students. (See Chart 12 below.) 13 P age

17 Chart 12. Factors that Keep Teachers from Using Technology (District Technology Survey 2012; N=2565) 80% 72% 60% 40% 20% 47% 40% 54% 42% 37% 33% 28% 0% My students 3. Not all of my students have access to reliable technology at home. 4. Not all of my students have adequate technology skills. 5. I need to become more comfortable using technology in the classroom. 6. I need support integrating technology into my curriculum 7. I have other more pressing priorities and/or expectations. 8. Technology Use - College/Career Readiness: College and Career Readiness is part of the vision student success. 14 The district recently received a $1 million grant to extend the new mandatory 9 th grade Plan Ahead College and Career curriculum to a digital platform and create digital student portfolios and web reports. The district is also piloting the online Odysseyware course at Independence High School in The Career Technical Education (CTE) Department supports two high school programs, Career Academies and Pathways, and the SFCOE Regional Occupation Programs, and supports 2,440 students. The Career Academies are multi-year programs that teach a college-prep curriculum organized around a career theme and integrate work-based learning into the curriculum. Students participate in internships and take concurrent courses at City College of San Francisco. All Career Academies incorporate the latest industry-standard tools, including technology (See Chart 13 on the next page). 14 SFUSD School Planning Summit Report, February 11, P age

18 Chart 13 Academies and Pathways Participants Balboa Burton Galileo Lincoln Marshall Wallenberg Washington Ida B Wells Biotechnology/Medical Sciences 291 X X X Business/Finance 199 X X CISCO Pathway 168 X X Construction Pathway 58 Engineering/Construction Trades 41 X X X Environmental Science/Green California Partnership 143 X X Health 312 X X Hospitality and Tourism 105 X X X X Information Technology/Digital Arts 686 X X X X X Law 88 X Teacher 99 X X The County ROP in partnership with City College of San Francisco serves high school students and young adults and offers courses that focus on training across a wide spectrum of occupational training program. About 150 high school students are enrolled in technology related ROP training programs. Technology Use - Special Education Students: The district and SFCOE serve a total of 6,295 students with special needs (SPED). SPED students in general education classes have access to existing classroom and library technology, although interviews indicated that not all SPED classrooms are included in school wide technology deployments. In addition SPED students have access to assistive technology tools including AlphaSmart Key Boards, Step-by-Step handheld communications tools, Boardmaker alternative software communications tools, text to speech technologies,. While providing assistive technologies to SPED students is district policy, district funding was only $30,000 for , which is allocated on a first-come, first-serve basis. Site funding is based on the number of enrolled SPED students, but the school with the largest population only has a total budget of $300 for assistive technology. Technology Use - Data, Assessment and Accountability: The district is implementing a comprehensive data management system to support data driven instruction and planning that consists of three major components: Use of Multiple Assessments: In addition to the state mandated diagnostic and summative assessments, the district has implemented the benchmark Common Learning Assessments (CLAs) for mathematics and language arts. Approximately 14,000 students took the CLA for language arts and 19,000 the CLA for mathematics in All CLAs are scanned and data returned to teachers within 24 hours. In addition, two diagnostics assessments have been implemented for students in grades K-2: PALS for early reading and the Brigance for early development. Student Data Redesign Project: To improve the quality of data the teachers are using and to meet state reporting requirements, the district is implementing the Student Data Redesign project. A key component is the migration from a district designed student information system 15 P age

19 (SIS) to the web-based Synergy SIS and to the SEIS for SPED students and migrating from the current CATS program for Early Education to Synergy in in The SIS for SPED and Early Education will all be bridged with Synergy when fully implemented. Use of Data for Decision Making: The district implemented a new web-based data management system, Data Director, in Data Director allows administrators and teachers to have ready access to student data, including CST and other state test results, the CLAs, teacher administered tests, and end-of-chapter tests along with information from the SIS. As of October 2011 there were 3,083 unique log-ins to the system and a total of 53,926 log-ins between July and November The use of student data from Data Director is a major focus of professional development around the core curriculum and practices that support inclusion and differentiation of instruction. Resources to support the assessment program, including support documents for the CLAs, are available through the Office of Assessment Sharepoint intranet site. In addition, the district is migrating its budgeting, accounting, purchasing and other enterprise management functions to web based systems. (See also Component 5.) Technology Use - Promote Classroom/School Management and Improve School-Home Communications: Elementary teachers also use Data Director to post grades and to create standards-based report cards. As of end-or-year or 56% of elementary teachers and 71 schools used Data Director for grades. On the District Teacher Technology Survey, teachers reported using Data Director often beyond grading: 34.7% for elementary, 20.7% for middle school, 30.2% for K-8 and 17.7% for high school teachers. The district has implemented School Loop, a web-based portal for teachers, students and parents in Teachers have access to a range of online classroom management tools and record attendance. Secondary teachers use School Loop for grades, eliminating time consuming and cumbersome paper processes. By the last quarter 2011, 81% of the high schools and 91% of the middle schools were using School Loop for grading, and 68% and 57% respectively had 90% or more of their teachers using School Loop for grading. Chart 14: Percentage of Middle and High School Teachers Submitting Grades Using School Loop (Source: School Loop system statistics for 4 th quarter ) 100% 50% 0% % of High Schools Submitting Grades on School Loop % of High Schools >90% of teachers submitting grades on School Loop % of Middle Schools Submitting Grades on School Loop % of Middle Schools >90% of teachers submitting grades on School Loop 16 P age

20 Communications between school staff, parents and students are also facilitated through School Loop . The School Loop student and parent portals give families the ability to monitor student progress, communicate with teachers and administrators and access assignments, test schedules, homework resources, school events and news. School Loop also s or places nightly multilingual calls to parents with student homework and attendance. There are currently 12,111 registered families 15 for School Loop and there were a total of 15,298,559 page views between August and November With the exception of the county schools 100% of middle and high schools and 62% of the elementary schools posted 16 to School Loop between August and October School Loop is used most heavily by secondary teachers, since initial training focused on secondary schools to encourage use of School Loop for grading. 88.8% of middle school and 86% of high school teachers reported being regular users of School Loop, compared to 13.3% of K-5 teachers. The major reasons teachers offered for not using School Loop is summarized below. Chart 15: Primary Reasons for Not Using School Loop (District Teacher Technology Survey; Total N = 2565) (Number responding to optional question = 698) Need a computer My school doesn't use it Parents don't have technology No Time Not easy to use Not needed for my position/n.a. Not useful;; just won't use it Need training The district has also collaborated with School Loop navigation easier for parents and other end-users. All teachers and administrators have district accounts, with approximately 59.1% of the teachers reporting using district daily and another 20.2% using it at least once a week. Preference for School Loop or personal , resistance to checking multiple accounts Outlook Web Access (OWA) platform were identified as 15 If a family registers for more than one student, or a mother and father registering for the same student, they are counted a are counted once. 16 A posting is defined as an assignment, news item, event or sending an . Any teacher who has posted 3 or more items within the past 30 days is counted. 17 P age