common core technology project - eventscommon core technology project, during which time a subset of...

November 12, 2013 Board Mee2ng

1

COMMON CORE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT

“Helping transform teaching and learning via 21st century technology”

Submitted 11/8/2013

Objectives

•  Provide Background Information on the Common Core Technology Project

•  Provide a Phase 1 Update •  Request Clear and Specific Guidance and Directions for

any next steps for Phase 2 and Beyond. Specifically, feedback about future phases in terms of:

2

•  Scope •  Scale •  Technical Infrastructure •  Security •  Professional Development •  Implementation

•  Materials (digital and non-digital)

•  Number of schools •  Length of implementation •  Any other additional feedback

the Board wishes to give

Agenda

1.  Why CCTP? Why Now? 2.  What was our Procurement Process? 3.  What were our Original Plans and what our are Lessons Learned?

a.  Curriculum b.  Infrastructure c.  Safety d.  Parent Engagement and Responsibility e.  School Support f.  Communications Strategy g.  Evaluation

4.  Where are we in Phase 1? 5.  What are the Voices from the Field? 6.  What is our Updated Budget and Five Year Financial Plan? 7.  What is our Proposed Revised Plan for Phase 2 and Beyond? 8.  What is your Guidance?

3

Why CCTP? Why Now?

4

Why CCTP? Why Now? •  “There is remarkable consensus among educators and

business and policy leaders on one key conclusion: we need to bring what we teach and how we teach into the 21st century.” TIME Magazine, December 18, 2006

•  Students need ongoing, daily access to technology so they can develop the 21st century skills necessary to compete in a global market

•  Technology has the potential to transform education by extending the learning space beyond the four walls of a classroom

5

Why CCTP? Why Now? (cont’d) •  Meaningful use of educational technology is part of the

Common Core State Standards (see Appendix for full text)

•  By Spring 2015, students will start taking the new assessments online that also measure 21st Century Skills

•  The US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found a significant disparity in resources, particularly in the area of technology, allocated to schools with a high percentage of African American students

6

CCTP facilitates: •  E-instruction •  E-curriculum •  E-assessments •  E-textbooks •  E-tools

7

Why CCTP? Why Now? (cont’d)


8

K-12 schools and universities integrating tablets as of February 23, 2013 (source: zdnet.com)


9

Before CCTP, some LAUSD Schools have been leading the way with successful 1:1 programs:

•  Ivanhoe Elementary •  Marquez Charter •  Maywood Elementary •  Melrose Elementary •  Mulholland Special

Education Classroom •  San Fernando Institute of

Applied Media •  West Hollywood Elementary •  Young Oak Kim Academy •  Stevenson Middle

Why CCTP? Why Now? •  Schools need to be ready to administer the Smarter

Balanced assessments in the Spring of 2015. Both the mandatory summative assessment and the optional interim assessments will be computer adaptive.

•  Though the State will provide a paper and pencil version for three years, a computer adaptive assessment adjusts the difficulty of questions throughout the assessment. –  By adapting to the student as the assessment is taking place,

these assessments present an individually tailored set of questions to each student and can quickly identify which skills students have mastered.

–  This approach represents a significant improvement over traditional paper-and-pencil assessments, providing more accurate scores for all students across the full range of the achievement continuum.

10

Why CCTP? Why Now? (cont’d) •  Advantages of Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT)

–  Better information for teachers: Optional computer adaptive interim assessments will provide a more detailed picture of where students excel or need additional support, helping teachers to differentiate instruction.

–  More efficient and more secure: Computer adaptive tests are typically shorter than paper-and-pencil assessments because fewer questions are required to accurately determine each student’s achievement level. Since students receive different questions based on their responses, test items are more secure and can be used for a longer period of time.

–  More accurate: CAT offers teachers and schools a more accurate way to evaluate student achievement, readiness for college and careers, and to measure growth over time.

11


•  The magnitude of our competition is changing. We need to improve our global competitive position and develop within the global community.

•  The demands of the workplace have changed. –  More than two-thirds of working Americans use a computer at work, and 84%

of them say it is essential for their jobs –  Four out of five employed Americans with incomes greater than $30,000 per

year use a computer at work (Poll by National Public Radio, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, December 1999)

12

Without CCTP, what?

Questions?

13


What was our procurement process?

14

Procurement

Phases of Procurement •  Planning – How to Procure •  Creation of Published Documents •  Evaluation and Selection •  Board Approval and Contract Execution

15

Procurement (cont’d)

Planning •  Highest Qualified – Select from Lowest Three

Price Proposals – PCC 20118.1 •  Similar to Best Value •  Other RFPs Nationwide and District General

Conditions •  Various Scopes of Work Required Experts •  Draft RFP •  Industry Forum – Redraft RFP – Issue RFP

16


Request for Proposal Advertised •  Cone of Silence •  Requests for Information and Addendums •  Established Selection Panels •  Received 13 Proposals

17


Evaluation and Selection •  Evaluation Committees by Topic •  Executed Non-Disclosure Agreements •  Scored Responsiveness •  Received Demo Devices and Score Criteria •  Natural Breakpoint at 70 left three proposals

18


Interview and Final Selection •  Interviews – Non-scoring •  Final Rescore – Head to Head •  Panel Recommendation – Highest Quality

Scorer with Lowest Price •  Recommendation to Executive Panel (Chief

Information Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Instruction, Chief Strategy Officer)

•  Executive Panel To Chief Facilities Executive – Ok to take to Board

19


Excerpted RFP Language on the Curriculum (P. 25 of the RFP): •  “The content will be piloted during Phase 1 of the

Common Core Technology Project, during which time a subset of District teachers will complete an extensive review of the curriculum…”

•  “The content must be approved by the state of California by January 2015.”

20

Questions?

21


What was our original plan for curricular resources and

what have we learned?

22

23

•  Pearson Common Core System of Courses for ELA and Math •  Provides opportunities for teachers to differentiate instruction for students

that are at, above, or below grade level •  Built around themes and competencies (language arts) and concepts/

practices (mathematics) •  Supplemental until full implementation

•  Apps on the tablets allow creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills to flourish, and support project-based learning

•  Harte Prep students use CoachMyVideo in PE to instantly see the statistics of their movements and body angles

•  Ms. Wolfe at Valley Academy of Arts and Sciences uses Socrative to collect daily exit tickets from her 9th grade English students

•  Students at Animo Westside film each other acting out the SAT words of the week and then add music and titles in iMovie to create a video

•  The tablet is an indispensable tool for redefining learning for each

individual student

Curricular Resources

What did we look for?

K-12 English Language Arts and K-8* Mathematics courses aligned to the Common Core State Standards, determined by the Publishers’ Criteria

The system must:

•  be delivered digitally. •  include a powerful set of technology tools needed to engage and

support students. •  provide meaningful feedback and assessments that are aligned to

Smarter Balanced prototypes. •  have access to a variety of instructional activities, including

simulations, educational games, and interactive tools for doing mathematics, reading, writing, listening and speaking

Curricular Resources (cont’d)

24

*At the time of the RFP, California had not yet determined its approach (traditional vs. integrated) for High School Mathematics

25


SHORT VIDEO

26

Implementation Timeline (original plan) Phase 1 Teachers and Students: •  Fall 2013: Drop-in Lessons •  Spring 2014: Entire Course Phase 2 Teachers and Students: •  Spring 2014: Drop-in Lessons •  Fall 2014: Entire Course

Phase 3 Teachers and Students: •  Fall 2014: Entire Course

The full list of drop-in lessons and second semester units can be seen in the Appendix



•  In addition to Pearson and Apple introductory

professional development, provide PD on specific apps, classroom management, and digital citizenship

•  Support schools in establishing learning communities earlier, even before students get devices

•  For spring semester in Phase 1 schools, instead of implementing the entire Pearson course, teachers will implement selected units of study

27

Lessons Learned

Questions?

28


What was our original plan for infrastructure and what have we

learned?

29

30

Infrastructure

•  Ongoing effort, part of the School Modernization Program •  Network

–  Wide Area Network (WAN) / Core –  School networks (internet bandwidth, local network)

•  Security –  Content filtering for off-campus use –  Security monitoring tools

•  Management and Monitoring –  Access Control –  Tuning and Optimization –  Proactive Trouble Shooting

31

Phase 1 •  Classrooms are 1:1 ready at all 47 Phase 1 CCTP schools •  Core network upgrade

o  Internet access increased by six fold o  Core network capacity redesigned and increased by 20

fold o  Monitoring and Management tools’ implementation in

progress o  Email/Collaboration and Identify Management in progress

Phase 2+ •  176 schools ready today •  287 schools in progress •  486 schools not started

Notes: 1.  Numbers include independent charters at District sites 2.  Total 754 sites, approximately 1,018 schools

CCTP Network Readiness

Infrastructure (cont’d)

32

•  Scope of work must be validated by site surveys –  estimates should be based on entire site

•  School WIFI network requires tuning and configuration to accommodate density –  Post device rollout visits


Lessons Learned

Questions?

33


What was our original plan for safety and what have we learned?

34

35

CCTP 4 Point Safety Strategy (1 of 2)

Safety

Cyber Safety •  Children’s Internet Protection Act Compliance •  Mobile Device Management/Home Filtering •  Digital Citizenship Campaign

Community Outreach •  Showcase Schools, Press Conferences •  Town Hall Meetings, Student Assemblies and Parent Meetings •  PSAs, Bus Wraps, Tri-folds, Posters

Technology Innovation Application

•  Every tablet can be tracked by the District if lost or stolen and can be disabled remotely so that it is useless outside of the District

•  LOCK IT/ FREEZE IT/ TRACK IT

36

CCTP 4 Point Safety Strategy (2 of 2)

Law Enforcement Working Group to create the "High Risk/Low Reward" environment

•  Los Angeles School Police Department (LASPD) is collaborating closely with all law enforcement agencies, county and city prosecutors, to effectively and proactively identify emerging crime trends and to develop innovative solutions

•  LASPD is coordinating the Law Enforcement Working Group

(LEWG) to identify suspects, conduct timely and thorough investigations, make relevant arrests, engage in robust prosecutions to create a culture of “High Risk/Low Reward”

Safety (cont’d)

37

Devices Deployed To Date

•  Teacher/ Principal 1,500 •  Students 23,721

Deployed Lost Stolen Rate Recovered

Teacher/Administrator 1,500 0 4 0.002 2

Student 23,721 0 2 0.000084 0

Aggregate Rate 25,221

0 6 0.000237

Outstanding Devices 25,221 0 4 0.000158 2

CCTP Rate of Inventory Loss

Safety (cont’d)

38

Plan for a more robust, comprehensive security solution, including Digital Citizenship education and awareness for faculty, students and parents School Site Surveys

•  Each School Campus has individual Needs and Considerations

•  Coordination of Service Providers •  Instruction, LASPD, ITD, Facilities, Contractors

•  Adequate Staffing Levels

Service Improvement •  Weekly Team Meeting and Debriefing •  Coordinated Communication Strategies •  Embedded the LASPD Safety Team into CCTP •  Creation of the Law Enforcement Working Group

Safety (cont’d)

Lessons Learned

Questions?

39

Safety (cont’d)

What was our original plan for parent engagement and responsibility and what

have we learned?

40

Parents

•  Parent training is provided by school staff. •  Training focuses on:

–  the rationale for transition to CCSS – shift in culture and expectations for students – how use of technology supports improved student

learning – how parents can reinforce learning at home with the

device – digital and other resources for support (apps,

websites, school contact person) •  Training will be provided by PCSB to District parent

committees.

41

Parent Engagement

Parents (cont’d)

•  Complete and return a Parent / Student Acknowledgement Form.

•  Parents are not responsible for theft or loss of the device.

•  A parent signature is not required before a student receives a device, because the device is an instructional and learning tool.

•  Return rate of the form: highest reported return rate = 99%; lowest reported return rate = above 80%

•  Distribution of the Parent / Student Acknowledgement Form varies by local school protocols.

42

Parent Responsibility

Parents (cont’d)

•  Customize parent training for specific needs •  Parents want differentiated training based on:

–  needs of specific student by level: elementary, middle and high school

–  other student-specific needs: Special Education, English Learner, gifted

–  parent familiarity with technology –  parent familiarity with digital citizenship and internet

safety •  Convene a focus group of parents to provide feedback on

Common Core Technology Plan and on training modules •  Corrected Parent / Student Acknowledgement Form around

the issue of parent liability

43

Lessons Learned

Questions?

44

Parents (cont’d)

What was our original plan for school support and what have we

learned?

45

School Support Virtual Learning Complex Readiness Facilitators (VLCRF)

§  Liaison between schools and the CCTP project team

§  Through School Leadership VLCRF supports: § Pre-Deployment § Deployment § Post-Deployment

46

School Support (cont’d)

•  Pre-Deployment •  Prepare school leadership team •  Train school leadership team on parent engagement •  Coordinate deployment options

•  Deployment •  Coordinate and assist school in deployment activities •  Collaborate with the school to insure that systems are in

place for management of the devices •  Resolve immediate issues

47


Microcomputer Support Assistant (MCSA) §  Provide first level support for the operation of

CCTP iPads § Diagnose and troubleshoot wireless

connectivity §  Implement District proprietary configuration on

each device §  Address hardware and software malfunctions §  Provide technical assistance with

implementation of Common Core curriculum

48

Pearson Professional Development

49

Professional Development delivered by Pearson Phase 1 (Days)

Status

Administrator Networks (Face-to-Face) •  One day of face-to-face training plus support for online tools

(online seminars plus collaboration portal and self-paced tools)

1

Delivered August 2

Core Professional Development (Face-to-Face) •  Two days of core face-to-face implementation training for

teachers plus information on available online tools (online seminars plus self-paced tools)

2

Delivered

August 6-7; 8-9

Onsite Coaching/Technical Assistance

•  Phase 1: Monthly 1-day visits to each participating school with up to 50 visits total.

Monthly visit

Phase 1 visits began week of August 26, 2013

Online seminars •  60 minutes in duration (average)

•  Tailored by grade-band for implementation support

•  Offered according to a monthly schedule (multiple opportunities monthly for individual PLCs to participate) with up to 12 sessions for Phase 1.

Monthly session

1st sessions delivered in-

person at school sites

On-line once all schools have

tablets


50

School Support (cont’d) Apple Professional Development

•  A one-day workshop for principals •  Foundational training for teachers (one day for ELA and

Math teachers; two days for all other teachers) •  Additional professional development focused on iOS

Devices, iOS Creativity and iOS Productivity, using a Train-the-Trainer model

•  Year One: 296 Days of PD* •  Year Two: 80 Days of PD* •  Year Three: 80 Days of PD*

*One Day of PD = 6 hour workshop for up to 25 participants


•  Early support to build capacity with a goal of gradual release •  Early support for principals •  Establish tech leadership teams months ahead of deployment to

build culture •  Deploy devices to teachers months ahead of student deployment

(provide PD)

51

Lessons Learned

Questions?

52


What was our original plan for communications and what have we learned?

53

1.  Quarterly Live & Taped Television Broadcasts

2.  Ongoing Website Updates

3.  Monthly Electronic Newsletter

4.  Security and Safety Strategy (PSAs)

5.  Centralized Common Fact Sheets

Key elements of the communications strategy:

54

Communications (cont’d)

Lessons Learned

•  Pro-active communications strategy in place sooner

•  Communications task force established earlier •  Well developed protocol for Q&A •  Toolkits for all stakeholders prepared prior to the

upcoming phases

55


Questions?

cctp.lausd.net

56


What was our original plan for evaluation and what

have we learned?

57

Common Core Technology Project Plan (CCTPP)

VISION -- Each student will receive more individualized instruction from educators, enabled by a personal computing device. GOALS -- The goal of the Common Core Technology Project is to provide an individualized, interactive, and information-rich educational experience for students.

Evaluation will be organized around three components: •  Infrastructure •  Devices •  Instruction/Curricular Content

Evaluation

58

Sample Research Questions -- Infrastructure

v  Infrastructure §  Was the infrastructure in place in the Phase I schools? §  What specific positions or roles at school sites ensured a

smoother roll out?

v Devices §  What is the amount of professional development and training

is needed to attain educator proficiency with the device? §  How comfortable were teachers and principals in using the

devices in the Phase I schools?

Evaluation (cont’d)

59

Sample Research Questions – Instruction/Curricular Content

v District/School Leadership §  What are the leadership practices that enhance the use of

technology? §  Do leaders provide time for teacher professional learning and

collaboration? v Teachers

§  In what ways did teachers use the CCTP to individualize instruction for students and student groups, e.g., English Learners and Students with Disabilities? What gains in achievement resulted from differentiated instruction?

§  What impact did technology have on collaboration between students, teachers and schools?


60

Sample Research Questions – Instruction/Curricular Content

v  Students §  What impact did CCTP have on student learning and achievement? §  What impact does tech have on student conduct and behavior

(attendance, suspensions, infractions)?

v  Parents §  How are parents engaged in the rollout of CCTP? §  What teacher/administrator practices led to the highest rates of parent

engagement?


61

Data Collection

§  Implementation Statistics – help desk calls, network connectivity, usage of devices

§  Surveys – teachers, students, parents, administrators §  Observations – professional development sessions,

classrooms §  Focus groups – VLC Facilitators, principals §  Student achievement outcomes §  Attendance, suspensions §  Case studies, ethnographies


62

Questions?

63


Phase 1 Update

64

Rollouts to Staff and Students – Progress to Date

65

Week beginning

August 26th

Week beginning September

9th


16th


23rd


30th

Week beginning October

7th


14th


21st Number of Schools Per Week 4 8 9 5 4 6 2 2 Total number of schools deployed 4 12 21 26 30 36 38 40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Num

ber o

f Sch

ools

Dep

loye

d

Number of Schools Deployed

Phase 1 Update

66

Week beginning

August 26th


9th


16th


23rd


30th


7th


14th


21st Number of Devices per week 1307 4868 6205 4612 2181 2972 779 423 Total of devices deployed 1322 6175 12380 16992 19173 22145 22924 23347

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Num

ber o

f Dev

ice

Dep

loye

d to

Number of Devices Deployed

Rollouts to Staff and Students – Progress to Date

Phase 1 Update (cont’d)


Overall, the project received a rating of 3 on a 4-point scale. Some of the key findings were as follows: •  60% were slightly or moderately prepared; 40% felt very

prepared to integrate iPads into the curriculum. •  92% participated in the summer training and almost 60% participated in

additional training, resulting in an average of 14 hours per respondent. •  76% felt the rollout was very or moderately smooth. •  100% have contacted a District employee for support; 80% have

experienced problems with wireless connectivity and sign-on/passwords. •  The noticeable increase in student engagement was mentioned several

times as the best aspect of the iPad program. •  Issues identified as the worst aspect dealt with the security, inability to take

them home and that incomplete lessons were provided.

67

Results from AALA Survey of Phase 1 Principals (24 responses)


Some critical questions were identified in the responses: •  How will teachers and administrators get more in-depth training on the use

of the iPads in the classroom? •  How much instructional time is being lost for the daily distribution and

collection of the devices? •  How will the District ensure that secure storage available at all school sites? •  How will the wireless connectivity issues raised by administrators be

addressed? •  When will complete courses be available? •  When will specific, grade-appropriate goals for the use of the iPad be

determined and communicated to parents and staff?

68

Results from AALA Survey of Phase 1 Principals (24 responses)

69


SHORT VIDEO

Questions?

70


What are the voices from the field?

71

What is our updated budget and 5 year financial plan?

72

Ø  Original Budget Estimate (before we released the RFP) @ $650

per device Ø  Actual Negotiated Price for device bundle is:

*Bundle includes 32GB iPad (4th gen w/retina display), case, configuration/integration/delivery services, extended warranty, buffer pool, educational apps, Pearson content, Apple TV(1 per 20 students)).

73

Bundled* Device Cost Average Cost for all Phases (I,II,III)

Cost Device Bundle $699 Tax $63 E-Waste $6 Total $768

Keyboard (estimated average cost per bundled device is calculated by purchasing 469,003 keyboards at a cost of $20-30 w/ tax divided by 636,704 devices ) $15-$22

Average rebate per bundled device (after purchasing $400M in devices we receive $13.5M in discounts divided by 636,704 devices) ($21)

1/2 of K-‐1 50,842

Grades 2-‐8 308,659 Grades 9-‐12 ELA and Math Only (# of teachers x highest roster count) 109,502

Total # of Keyboards 469,003 Cost with tax Based on current market prices as of 10/13 * $20-‐$30

Total Cost of Keyboards $9.4 – 14.1M Total number of devices purchased 636,704

Average cost of keyboard per device $15-‐$22

*Note: We will do an RFP in the winter to see if we can get a lower price.

74

Keyboard Purchase Recommendation & Cost

Market Value of 32 GB iPad 4th genera2on with re2na display (as of contract signing date of 7/16/13)

Item EsOmated Cost Per

Device 32GB iPad $499-‐$599 Griffin Case $80 Apple Care (Extended 3 year warranty for manufacturer defects) $149 Educational & Productivity Apps $13-‐$21 Pearson Content (Math and ELA licensed for 3 years on each device) $150-‐$300 Tax (9%) $80-‐103 eWaste $6

Total $977 -‐ $1,258

75

LAUSD’s Bundle Price of $768 is $209 to $490 less than Market Price

Additional items are also bundled such as rebate after purchasing $400M ($21 per device) Configuration/Integration/Delivery Services (average cost/device $20), Buffer Pool for non-warranty, i.e. theft, loss (average cost/device $19), Apple TV (1 per 20 student devices) (average cost/device $ 5), keyboards (average cost/device $15-$22), professional development)

76

Staffing

Original Revised VLC (School Support)

14:1 7:1

MCSA (IT Support) 18:1 7:1

Original Revised VLC (School Support) 70 152* MCSA (IT Support) 55 152*

*As staff complete project work, they will roll off the project and be supported by the general fund

Wireless Upgrades $326.3M Web Filtering for Home Use $ 5.2M Core Network Upgrade $ 34.7M

Total $366.2M

77

CCTP Infrastructure Costs

Item Budget EsOmate

(10/13) Comments

Phase 2&3 EsOmates Devices $466,748,110 Device Price Change = $73M and # of Devices = $25M

Staffing $63,332,893 Adjusted raOos of support for schools

Carts $58,285,767 Original esOmates based on student raOo, revised based on classroom counts Mobile Device Management (MDM) $5,189,709 Learning Management System (LMS) $8,528,744

Security $15,660,000 Based on Phase 1 Assessment. Includes combinaOon of safe rooms, cart security, and storage containers.

ConOngency $15,781,131 For enrollment fluctuaOons, budget assumpOon changes, etc.

Subtotal Phase 2 & 3 $633,526,354 Pending Board approval

Phase 1 $50,000,000 Board Approved

Infrastructure $366,197,033 Board Approved ($100,997,033) & Pending Board Approval ($265,200,000)

Grand Total $1,049,723,387

78

Revised CCTP Bond Budget Estimates for All Phases

COMMON CORE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT

Executive Sponsors – Weekly Status

Report

79

2013 – 2018 Five-Year Plan

CCTP – 5 Year Plan

80

Internet and Electricity Costs

Year

Prior Year Cost*

Increase in Internet Cost

Total Projected Internet Cost

Funding Source

2015-2016

$33.0M

$2.9M

$35.9M

E-rate (84%) / General Fund (16%)

2016-2017

$35.9M

$9.4M

$45.3M


2017-2018

$45.3M

$0.5M

$45.8M


2018-2019

$45.8M

$0.5M

$46.3M


Internet Cost Estimates

We estimate that staring in 2014-15, electricity costs will have a one time ongoing increase of $400K - $600K

Electricity Costs

*includes landlines


81

Infrastructure Costs will be funded by E-rate and Bonds

Area

June ‘13 Approved Board Action

Remaining Requirements

Network Infrastructure Upgrades at School Sites

61,385,261 260,000,000*

Network Infrastructure Design at 162 Sites 4,900,000 -

Core Network Upgrades 34,711,772 -

Web Content Filtering when students take devices home

- 5,200,000

SUBTOTAL 100,997,033 265,200,000

GRAND TOTAL 366,197,033

* Indicates the cost forecast for the remaining WLAN projects


82

Instructional Delivery Platform & Content Starting in 2016-17, we will use our textbook funding (over the last four years we averaged $63M per year on textbooks) to purchase digital content licensing and appropriate textbooks

Assumptions: •  Pearson application has a delivery component and instructional content for the first 3 years •  Instructional Content will be refreshed starting in year four •  Our goal is to use our textbook funding to purchase digital content •  Individual schools will use their instructional materials account (IMA) to purchase any additional content for devices

Starting in 2017-18, we will spend $4-$6 per student ($2M-$4M per year) on the Learning Management System


83

On-Going Support Staffing will be funded out of General Fund and Title II

Area Estimated Costs per year (in millions)

Funding Source General Fund impact by year

Microcomputer Support Assistant

$12M

General Fund

2014-15 $1.8M 2015-16 $12M

VLC Facilitators

$16.4M

Title II / General Fund

2014-15 $8.0M 2015-16 $16.4M

School Police

$0.6M

General Fund

2015-16 $0.6M

School Based Support

Area

Estimated Costs per year (in millions)

Funding Source

General Fund impact by year

School Support

$1.3M

Title II / General Fund

2016-17 $1.3M

IT Support

$6.5M

General Fund

2014-15 $1.4M 2015-16 $1.4M 2016-17 $6.5M

Non-School Based Support


84

On-Going Software Maintenance will be funded by General Fund

Software Annual Cost Funding Source

Device Management Systems (i.e., Mobile Device Management)

$8.5M starting in 2016-17

General Fund

Web Filtering

~$3-$5/device ($1.9M-$3.2M) starting in 2016-17

General Fund

Total $10.4M-$11.7M General Fund


85

Mobile Device Upgrade Assumptions: •  Upgrade cycle will commence in year 4 •  We will do a comprehensive RFP for devices •  Device upgrade will occur over a three year period •  Estimates are based on current enrollment figures •  Estimated upgrade cost of $200-$400 per device

•  Includes device cover, power cable and warranty •  Excludes instructional content

Fiscal Year No. of Devices Cost Range

2016-2017 ~100,000 $20M - $40M

2017-2018 ~250,000 $50M - $100M

2018-2019 ~280,000 $56M - $112M

Total ~630,000 $126M - $252M

Device Refresh Cycle

Number of devices require adjustment for enrollment decline and co-located sites


86

Mobile Device Upgrade – Funding Options We have four funding options for the Board to consider using starting in 2016-17

1.  As bond projects are completed, use a portion of the freed up reserve to begin to fund the upgrade 2.  Consider including technology in the next capital bond to upgrade devices 3.  Lobby California to issue a statewide – educational technology bond 4.  Set aside $100 per child each year of general fund for technology upgrade starting in 2016-17

Questions?

87

5 Year Plan (cont’d)

What is our Proposed Revised Plan for Phase 2

and Beyond?

88

Phase 2 January 2014 to May 2014

Phase 3 August 2014 to December 2015

•  Roll out tablets at up to 36 campuses* by April, giving priority to OCR schools and schools identified as having very limited access to technology (up to approximately 40,000 devices)

•  Provide tablets and initial orientation to remaining principals and certificated staff at all LAUSD campuses by April (approximately 30,000 devices)

•  Provide tablet carts to campuses with inadequate technology so they can participate in the field tests of Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium scheduled for Spring 2014

(May be revised based on lessons learned in Phase 2) •  Roll out tablets at up to 200 campuses

in the Fall of 2014 (up to approximately 150,000 devices)

•  Roll out tablets at up to 250 campuses in the Spring of 2015 (up to approximately 200,000 devices)

•  Roll out tablets at all remaining campuses in the Fall of 2015

Recommended Plan for rolling out to the remaining LAUSD schools after Phase 1

* A campus includes all schools located at that site

90

APPENDIX

CCSS Language on Technology Use In English Language Arts:

Students employ technology thoughtfully to enhance their reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language use. They tailor their searches online to acquire useful information efficiently, and they integrate what they learn using technology with what they learn offline. They are familiar with the strengths and limitations of various technological tools and mediums and can select and use those best suited to their communication goals.

In Mathematics:

Mathematically proficient students consider the available tools when solving a mathematical problem. These tools might include pencil and paper, concrete models, a ruler, a protractor, a calculator, a spreadsheet, a computer algebra system, a statistical package, or dynamic geometry software. Proficient students are sufficiently familiar with tools appropriate for their grade or course to make sound decisions about when each of these tools might be helpful, recognizing both the insight to be gained and their limitations. When making mathematical models, they know that technology can enable them to visualize the results of varying assumptions, explore consequences, and compare predictions with data. Mathematically proficient students at various grade levels are able to identify relevant external mathematical resources, such as digital content located on a website, and use them to pose or solve problems. They are able to use technological tools to explore and deepen their understanding of concepts.

91

Pearson Lessons provided in Phase 1

92

Grade Title

K Play with Shapes

K Make or Break Apart to 20

1 Add, 1 to 20

2 Add It, Up to 100

2 Look at Data and Graphs

3 Multiply by 2, 3, 4, and 5

3 Divide

4 Decimal Numbers

5 The Decimal Number System

6 Ratios

6 Rate

6 Putting Math to Work

7 Zooming in on Figures 8 Analyzing Graphs

Grade Title

K.1 Rhythm and Rhyme

1.1 Read, Write, Learn

2.6 Folktales

3.6 Project: CHANGE!

4.2 Signs and Symbols

5.3 Doing the Right Thing

6.2 Smart. Smarter. Smartest!

7.4 Call to Action

8.3 Order in the Court

9.2 Youth

10.5 Project: What's for Dinner?

11.2 The American Short Story

12.2 Satire and Wit

Math ELA


2nd Semester Pearson Math Units to be provided to Phase 1 Schools

93

Grade Title

K.7 Build with Shapes

K.8 Learn Numbers to 20

K.9 Make or Take Apart to 20

K.10 Measure It!

K.11 Learn Numbers to 100

K.12 Add or Subtract It!

1.7 Explore 3-D Shapes

1.8 Write More Math Stories

1.9 Make a Picture Book

1.10 Dive into Data

1.11 Explore 20 and Beyond

2.7 Solve the Story

2.8 Look at Data and Graphs

Grade Title

2.9 Solve Two-Step Math Stories

2.10 Take a Journey

2.11 Explore 100 and Beyond

2.12 Add and Subtract Beyond 100

3.7 Divide

3.8 Understand Fractions

3.9 Measure the Area

3.10 Represent and Interpret Data

3.11 Measure Volume and Weight

3.12 Find the Unknown Number

4.5 Factors and Multiples

4.6 Fractions

4.7 Measurement

Grade Title

4.8 Lines and Angles

4.9 Number and Shape Patterns

5.6 Classify 2-D Figures

5.7 Multiply Fractions

5.8 Divide Fractions

5.9 The Coordinate Plane

5.10 Units and Volume

6.5 Equations and Inequalities

6.6 Rate

6.7 Putting Math to Work

6.8 Distributions and Variability

6.9 Surface Area and Volume

7.4 Zooming in on Figures

Grade Title

7.6 Samples and Probability


8.5 Linear Equations

8.6 Triangles and Beyond

8.7 Functions

8.8 Bivariate Data



In addition to Lessons provided in Phase 1

2nd Semester Pearson ELA Units to be provided to Phase 1 Schools

94

Grade Title

K.1 Rhythm and Rhyme

K.2 Family Stories

K.5 Bugs!

K.6 Tell Me a Tale

1.1 Read, Write, Learn

1.2 Best Friends

1.3 What is it?

1.7 Animal Tales

2.1 Power Readers!

2.2 What a Character!

2.6 Folktales

2.7 Family Histories

3.1 Community and Culture

Grade Title

3.4 Animal Stories

3.6 Project: CHANGE!

3.AA Animal Adaptations

4.1 Ideas!

4.2 Signs and Symbols

4.5 Ideas and Inventions

4.AA Making a Difference

5.1 Pets and Owners

5.2 Grapevines and Networks

5.3 Doing the Right Thing

6.1 A Long Time Ago in the Future

6.2 Smart. Smarter. Smartest!

6.3 Fantasy and Reality

Grade Title

7.1 You, Me, and Us

7.3 Of Speech and Silence

7.4 Call to AcOon

8.1 Differing Perspectives

8.2 Witch Hunts: Then and Now

8.3 Order in the Court

9.1 Fitting In/Standing Out

9.2 Youth

9.3 The Nightmare in Literature

10.1 A Mirror and a Window

10.4 The Nature of Knowledge

10.5 Project: What's for Dinner?

11.1 American Dreamers

Grade Title

11.3 Much Ado About Nothing

11.5 Project: Growing Up Digital

12.1 Things Fall Apart

12.2 Satire and Wit

12.4 Global Issues

In addition to Lessons provided in Phase 1


Environmental Health and Safety

•  Since 2007, The Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS) has utilized a precautionary threshold for radiofrequency (RF) exposures that is well below the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standard. OEHS believes that a more conservative level is necessary to protect children, who represent a vulnerable and sensitive population.

•  OEHS procured the services of a third party expert to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the District’s RF exposure threshold. The project also included a peer review evaluation of the experts work product. The experts found that the threshold is conservative, health protective and appropriate for use at LAUSD schools.

•  Prior to the Common Core Technology Project (CCTP) procurement process, OEHS completed a initial evaluation of RF exposures utilizing Wi-Fi technology. Based upon this evaluation, limits on end-device (e.g., tablets) power ratings were established and incorporated into the Request for Proposals developed by Procurement Services.

•  Following CCTP rollout of end-devices, OEHS initiated in-use classroom monitoring of RF exposures for available Phase 1 locations. Initial monitoring results indicate that RF exposures in classroom settings meet the District’s threshold. OEHS will continue to monitor classroom usage throughout the Phase 1 rollout as well as subsequent CCTP program phases.

95

Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS) CCTP Program Activities