senate concurrent resolution #22: task force on state ... · report of the task force on state...

SenateConcurrentResolution#22:TaskForceonStateEducationalTechnology

FinalReporttothe148thGeneralAssembly

March30,2016

A report of findings and recommendations regarding State Educational Technology in Delaware public schools.

TASK FORCE ON STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Michael Watson, Chair

The Townsend Building 401 Federal Street Suite 2

Dover, Delaware 19901-3639

March30,2016

To: Chairandmembers,BondCommittee Chairandmembers,JointFinanceCommittee Chairandmembers,HouseEducationCommittee Chairandmembers,SenateEducationCommitteeInearly2015,theSenateConcurrentResolutionNo.22directedthataTaskForcebeformedtoconductastudyoneducationaltechnologyandupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplantoensurethatallDelawarestudentshaveaccesstomodernandeffectiveeducationaltechnologiesthatenhancelearningandpromotecollegeandcareerreadiness.TheTaskForceonStateEducationalTechnologyhasspentthepastninemonthsworkingtofulfilltherequirementsofthisresolution.Wearepleasedtopresenttheresultsofthoseeffortsthroughthisreport.

ThankyoufortheopportunitytoserveourStateandcontributetoimprovingeducationthroughtheuseoftechnologyforourDelawarestudents.Wetrustyouwillfindthisreportusefulinaddressingthetechnologyandeducationneedsofourstudents,teachers,administrators,andschools.

OnbehalfoftheTaskForce,Iherebysubmitthisreportforyourconsideration.

Sincerely,

MichaelWatson,Chairperson

TaskForceMembers

Dr.TedAmmann Dr.DustyBlakey Dr.MicheleBrewer PatriciaDallas Rep.TimDukes Dr.KevinFitzgerald RobertFulton ColleenGause MatthewKorobkin MichaelLeague ElizabethLewis PatrickLiberato StevenMancini Dr.BethMineo KimberlyReinagel‐Nietubicz RandyReynolds MeganSzabo Sen.BryanTownsend MichaelWatson Dr.WayneHartschuh,StaffDirector PamReed,AdministrativeSecretary

Table of Contents

Overview of the Report and Planning Process ................................................................................................ 2

Task Force Members ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 10

Infrastructure and Leadership ....................................................................................................................... 11

National Perspective ............................................................................................................................... 11

Delaware Perspective ............................................................................................................................. 13

Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Infrastructure and Leadership ............................................ 18

Teaching and Learning .................................................................................................................................. 22



Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Teaching and Learning ........................................................ 33

Assistive Technology ..................................................................................................................................... 38



Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Assistive Technology ........................................................... 41

Current Funding Streams for Educational Technology ................................................................................. 43

Funding Recommendations for Our Path Forward ....................................................................................... 45

References ..................................................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix A: Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 22 ...................................................................................... 50

Appendix B: Teacher Survey .......................................................................................................................... 53

Appendix C: Infrastructure Survey ................................................................................................................ 63

Appendix D: Annual Delaware School Technology Survey ............................................................................ 66

Appendix E: Educational Technology Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations ......................................... 67

2

Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016

Overview of the Report and Planning Process TheTaskForceonStateEducationalTechnologywasformedbySenateConcurrentResolutionNo.22bythe148thGeneralAssemblyoftheStateofDelaware(AppendixA)tostudyeducationaltechnologyandupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplantoensurethatallDelawarestudentshaveaccesstomodernandeffectiveeducationalandassistivetechnologiesthatenhancelearningandpromotecollegeandcareerreadiness.

TheTaskForce’sinitialmeetingwasThursday,July9,2015.TheTaskForcemembersreviewednationalreportsoneducationaltechnologyanddecidedthattherewerethreeover‐archingareasthatneededtobeconsideredintheplan:InfrastructureandLeadership,TeachingandLearning,andAssistiveTechnology.TheTaskForceformedsub‐committeesrelatedtoeachofthesethreeareas.

Duringthefallof2015,theTaskForceconductedtwosurveysrelatedtothecurrentuseofeducationaltechnologyinourschoolsandclassroomsandthereadinessofteacherstoteachusingeducationaltechnology.The“teacher”survey(AppendixB)wasusedtodetermineuseoftechnologyinourschoolsandteacherattitudes.The“infrastructure”survey(AppendixC)wasusedtodeterminebroadbandissuesandaccessrelatedtoinfrastructureattheLEA(LocalEducationAgency–includesdistrictsandcharters)level.

TheTaskForce,asawholeandasthethreesub‐committees,metregularlybetweenJuly2015andMarch2016reviewingnationalreportsandactivities,previousstrategicplansfromtheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnology,reportsfromotherstates,surveydatafromtheteacherandinfrastructuresurveys,andotherdiscussionsanddocumentationthatprovidedacurrentstatusofeducationaltechnologyinDelawareschools.

Thisreportisorganizedaroundthesethreeareasandpresentsfirst,anationalperspective,thentheperspectiveofwhereDelawarehasbeen,wherewearenow,andwhereweneedtogo.ThenationalandDelawareperspectivesleadtothegoalsandtheirassociatedstrategies,andrecommendationsmadeinthisreport.Someoftherecommendationshavebudgetramificationsandsomehavetodowithpolicy,procedures,andactivities.

TheTaskForcefirmlybelievesthatDelawareneedstoprovideaneducationalenvironmentintegratedwithtechnologythatalignswiththeneedsofstudentsastheyprepareforbeingcollegeandcareerready.TheTaskForcebelievesthattheresultofthistechnology‐richenvironmentwillbeaneducationinfrastructureandteachingandlearningecosystemthatwillprovidetheappropriatetools,resourcesandsupportforDelaware’shard‐workingeducatorsandstudentsandwillbeabletogrowandprogresssothatthestudentsthriveandcontributepositivelytoDelaware’seconomyandculture.

Insummary,theTaskForcereviewedtechnologyuseinourpubliceducationschoolsandclassroomsandhasmadegoals,strategies,andassociatedrecommendations(AppendixE)throughthisreport.ThisTaskForcereportwillbesubmittedtotheChairandmembersoftheBondCommittee,theJointFinanceCommitteeandtheHouseandSenateEducationCommitteesofthe148thGeneralAssemblybyMarch30,2016.

3


Task Force Members MichaelWatson,Chair–ChiefAcademicOfficer/AssociateSecretaryofEducation,

DelawareDepartmentofEducation

Dr.TedAmmann–Assist.Superintendent,RedClayConsolidatedSchoolDistrict

Dr.DustyBlakey–Superintendent,ColonialSchoolDistrict

Dr.MicheleBrewer–AssistantProfessor,TechnologyChair,WilmingtonUniversity

PatriciaDallas–Teacher,RedClayConsolidatedSchoolDistrict

RepresentativeTimDukes–HouseEducationCommittee

Dr.KevinFitzgerald–Superintendent,CaesarRodneySchoolDistrict

RobertFulton–Superintendent,CapeHenlopenSchoolDistrict

ColleenGause–Telecommunications,DepartmentofTechnologyandInformation

KimberlyReinagel‐Nietubicz–SeniorLegislativeAnalyst,OfficeofControllerGeneral

MatthewKorobkin–SpecialEducationOfficer,DelawareDepartmentofEducation

MichaelLeague–InstructionalTechnologyCoach,IndianRiverSchoolDistrict

ElizabethLewis–SeniorFiscal&PolicyAnalyst,OfficeofManagementandBudget

PatrickLiberato–TechnologyCoordinator,CharterSchoolofWilmington

StevenMancini–Supervisor,Inform.&Inst.Technology,NewCastleCountyVo‐Tech

Dr.BethMineo–Director,CenterforDisabilitiesStudies,UniversityofDelaware

RandyReynolds–InformationTechnologySupervisor,CapeHenlopenSchoolDistrict

MeganSzabo–Delaware's2015TeacheroftheYear,CaesarRodneySchoolDistrict

SenatorBryanTownsend–SenateEducationCommittee

Othercontributorstothisworkinclude:

Dr.WayneHartschuh–DCETExecutiveDirector,DelawareDepartmentofEducation

Dr.GeoffFletcher–Principal,GHFletcherConsulting

GeriDonahue–AdministrativeSecretary,DelawareDepartmentofEducation

PamReed–AdministrativeSecretary,DelawareDepartmentofEducation

KimRodriguez–AidetoChiefAcademicOfficer,DelawareDepartmentofEducation

4


Executive Summary Technologyhasincreasinglytransformedthewaypeoplelivetheirlives,influencingsuchaspectsascommunication,artisticendeavors,andmethodsofteachingandlearning.Educationacrossthenationisstrugglingtokeepupwiththeneedsofcompanieshiringitsgraduates,collegesanduniversitieshavinghigherexpectationsandpossiblymostimportant,strugglingtokeepupwiththeneedsofits“clients,”thechildrenintheeducationsystem.Studentsgrowingupinatechnologicallyinfusedculturelearndifferently,interactdifferentlyandengagewithtechnologydailyinallaspectsoftheirlives.

Aseducatorscontinuallystrivetofindthebestwaystoconnectwithtoday’sdigitallearners,theysearchforinnovativewaystointegratenewtechnologiesaspartofthatprocessineffortstoincreasestudentachievement,shrinkaccessibilitygaps,andpreparestudentsforaglobaleconomy.Technology,whenintegratedeffectivelyintoteachingandlearning,canbeapowerfultoolthatextendslearningbeyondtheclassroomwalls.Wemustrecognizeandsupporttechnologyasanessentialcomponentinengagingallstudentsmorefullyinlearning.

Tothatend,theDelaware148thGeneralAssemblypassedSenateConcurrentResolutionNo.22callingfortheestablishmentofataskforcetostudystateeducationaltechnologyandupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplantoensurethatallDelawarestudentshaveaccesstomodernandeffectiveeducationaltechnologiesthatenhancelearningandpromotecollegeandcareerreadiness.

WhiletheTaskForcehasfollowedthedirectivefromtheGeneralAssemblytoupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplan,ithasputitsfocuslessonthetechnologyandmoreonwhatthetechnologycanbringintheteachingandlearningprocess.ThustheTaskForcehaskepttheDelawarestudentsandtheentireeducationenterprisetopofmindinitsworkbecausetechnologynolongercanbeviewedasanisolatedsilo.Instead,technologyinfuseseverypartofeducation.TheplanhasbeencraftedwiththeintenttobeinextricablylinkedtobroaderstateplansandincoordinationwiththeDelawareDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology.

Becauserecentstudiespurportthatthethreebiggestbarrierstotechnologyadoptionarethelackofleadershipsupport,lackoffinancialsupportfortrainingandinfrastructure,andlackofqualityprofessionaldevelopment,theTaskForceaddressedinfrastructureandleadership,teachingandlearning,andassistivetechnologythroughoutthestateasthefocifortheplan.

Infrastructure and Leadership Infrastructureisdefinedasallaspectsofthenetworkthatconnectsstudents,teachers,andadministratorstoavastarrayofresourcesontheInternetandpeopleworldwide.ItalsoincludesthepersonnelatthestateandintheLEAstoensurethatthenetworkscontinuetooperateefficientlyandeffectively.TwodecadesagowhenDelawarewasaleaderamongstatesinmanyaspectsoftechnology‐relatededucationbycreatingaK‐12network,infrastructuremeantaconnectionfromtheInternettotheschool,connectionsamongschoolsandawiredconnectiontoeachclassroom.Withagrowingrelianceinschoolstodayonmobiledevices,suchaslaptopsandtablets,wiredconnectionswithinschoolsarenolongernearlyaspractical.Wi‐Fiisrequired.Inaddition,becauseoftheacceleratingdemandforaccesstobroadbandandtherichresourcesitcanbring,thestateneedstoprovide

5


ongoingexpansionandupdatingofthenetworktocatchupwiththedemandofteachersandstudentsastheysolvereal‐worldproblemsandcreatecontentaswellasusecontent.TheincreasingsophisticationofthenetworksdemandssufficienttechnicalsupportineveryLEAtoensurethenetworksarerunningefficientlyandtimeandmoneydoesnotgotowastebecauseofabrokenconnectionorothertechnicalproblem.Currentlythestatehasaratioofonetechnicalsupportpersonforevery733computersusedforinstruction,whilethestandardforbusinessisonetechnicalsupportpersontoevery150devices.Thislackoftechnicalsupportendangerstheinvestmentintechnologyaswellaslearningforstudents.Finally,“thehomeworkgap,”studentswithoutbroadbandaccessathome,isaproblemformanyDelawarestudents.Thishomeworkgapdisproportionatelyimpactsrural,westernKentandSussexcountieswithsomeestimatessuggestingthatashighas40%offamilieslivingintheseareasmaynotcurrentlyhaveapathtosecurebroadbandservice.

DelawarewasoneofthefirststatesinthenationtofocusoneducationaltechnologybyprovidingstatewideleadershipwhentheLegislatureformedtheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologyattherecommendationofGovernorThomasR.Carperin1995.Thatleadershiphasbecomebifurcated,resultinginadiminishedcapacitytoleadandsupportLEAsastheyseektoprovidethebesteducationfortheirstudents.Ineachoftheseareas,Delawareneedstoreclaimitspriorleadership.Thefollowinggoals,ifaccomplished,willtakeamajorsteptoplacingDelawareinaleadingpositioninthecountry:

Goal1–Leadership:ThestatewillhaveanoversightorganizationtoprovidestrategicguidanceforeducationaltechnologyforthestateandLEAs.

Goal2–BroadbandandSupport:ThestatewidenetworkcorethatprovidesandsupportsbroadbandaccessandinternalnetworkstoallDelawarepublicschoolswillbemaintainedandgrownbyprovidingcontinuousimprovementandexpansionoftheinfrastructuretomeettheneedsoftheeducationcommunity.

Teaching and Learning TheidealandmosteffectiveandefficientscenarioforDelawarestudentsisforeverystudenttohaveafullyfunctioningdeviceatschoolandathome,arobustconnectiontotheInternet,devicesandconnectionsthatworkallthetime,andmostimportantly,ahighlyengagedteacherequippedwiththeskillsandknowledgetoeffectivelyandpurposefullyintegratetechnologyintolearning.Whilethisscenariomayseemloftyanddifficulttoreachineducation,itisthenormforvirtuallyeverybusinessinthestate.Itisnottoomuchtoexpectthatinthemiddleoftheseconddecadeofthe21stcentury,studentsandteachershavethesamefundamentaltoolstoensureDelawarestudentsarereadyfortheworkforceandtobefullyfunctioningcitizensofthestateandthenation.

The2015‐2016AnnualDelawareSchoolTechnologySurveyshowsapproximately110,700devicesforinstructioninDelawareschools.Withapproximately135,000Delawarestudents,thestateisnotnear1studentperdeviceandwith34,500ofthedevicesincomputerlabsorLibrary/MediaCenters,andothersoncarts,itisreasonabletoassumeonlyasmallpercentageofthemaregoinghomewithstudents.Thescenariootherbusinessesoperatewith–eachemployeehasatleastonewell‐supportedcomputingdeviceconnectedtotheInternet–isfarfromrealityforDelawarestudents.LEAsneedadditionalsupporttoensuretheirstudentshavethecapabilitytoaccessalltheresourcesnecessarytobecomecollegeandcareerready.

6


Thenotionofwell‐prepared,effectiveteachershasalwaysbeenatthecoreoflearningforstudents.Withthechangeinstudentstandards,approachestoassessment,instructionalapproachestoenablestudentstolearnthestandardsaswellastheinfluxoftechnologythroughschools,theneedforhighqualityprofessionallearninghasneverbeengreater.

Teacherpreparationprogramshaveresponsibilitytoprepareteachersinawiderangeofareasinashortperiodoftime.Similarly,ongoingprofessionaldevelopmentforpracticingteachersmustmirrortheneedsoftoday’sdigitallearners.AstechnologicalchangehasflowedthroughsocietyandlessrapidlythroughPre‐K–12education,teachingabouttheintegrationoftechnologythroughoutteachingandlearninghasbeenslowtopermeateteacherpreparationprograms.Asaresult,manyteachersrespondingtothesurveyadministeredinlatefall2015feelill‐preparedtousetechnologyeffectivelyandarecravingprofessionallearningtohelpthem.Thefollowinggoals,ifaccomplished,willtakeamajorsteptoensuringDelawarestudentshavethetoolstheyneedforfullengagementintheirlearningandDelawareteachershavetheongoingsupporttokeepuptodatewiththelatestinstructionalmethodsandresourcestohelptheirstudentslearneffectivelyandefficiently:

Goal3–ComputingDevices:Bythe2019‐2020schoolyear,allstudentswillhaveaccesstoacomputingdeviceatschoolandathome,toenhancelearningandprovidethemwithtechnologyskillsandsavvy.

Goal4–TeacherPreparation:By2020,allstudentsgraduatingteacherpreparationprogramsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinusingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheISTEStandardsforTeachers.

Goal5–ProfessionalLearning:PracticingeducatorsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinintegratingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)andtheISTEStandardsforTeachersandconsistentwithPSBRegulations1598and1599andfollowing.

Goal6–BlendedLearningtoPersonalizeInstruction:Studentsandeducatorswillhaveaccesstoastatewideonlinevirtualnetworkthatwillincludedigitalresourcesanddataanalysiscapabilitiestodeliverblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstructionforstudents.

Assistive Technology InDelaware,assistivetechnology(AT)consideration,accessanduseisquiteunevenacrossLEAs,andevenfromschooltoschoolandclassroomtoclassroom.OtherthanareiterationofthefederalrequirementsregardingATintheDelawareAdministrativeManualforSpecialEducationServices,theDelawareDepartmentofEducationhasissuednoadditionalguidancetoLEAsregardingATconsideration,accessanduse.Asevidencedindatacollectedatmanyjunctures,educationpersonnelfeelillequippedtomeettheirAT‐relatedobligationstostudentsbecauseofconfusionregardingrolesandresponsibilities,considerationandevaluationprocesses,andacquisitionmechanisms(includingfundingissues).

TremendousbarrierstoATaccessarisefromtheperceivedlackoffundingforAT.PersonnelareimplicitlyandexplicitlyurgedtoavoidconsiderationofATforfearofthefiscalimplications,andthereseemstobeverylimitedawarenessofhowtomaximizemultiplesourcesoffinancialsupportforATaccess.

Inmanyinstances,therequirementtoconsiderATforallstudentsforwhomanIEPisdevelopedisignored,andthedeploymentofATexpertiseacrossLEAsisquiteuneven.

7


SomeLEAshavededicatedATSpecialistsonstaffthatsupportteamdecision‐makingandassisteducatorsinimplementingATeffectively.OtherLEAshavenoformalizedmechanisms–andthepersonnelwhosupporttheirimplementation–relativetoATaccess,despitetheclearmandatesforATaccessanduseinIDEA.Thefollowinggoals,ifaccomplished,willensurethatallstudentshaveaccesstothedevicesnecessaryfortheirlearningandallteachershavetheknowledgeandexpertisenecessarytousetheirtoolsappropriately:

Goal7‐AssistiveTechnology:Student:Ensureallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilities,willhaveaccesstotechnologythatwillhelpthemlearnandachieve.

Goal8‐AssistiveTechnology:Educators:Alleducatorswillhavesufficientknowledge,skills,anddispositions—aswellasaccesstoconsistentandpredictableacquisitionmechanisms—toensurethatstudentswithdisabilitieshaveaccesstotheATneededforengagement,learningandskilldemonstration.

Funding Eachoftheeightgoalshasmultiplestrategiesthatinturnleadtorecommendations,someofwhichhavebudgetramificationsandsomeofwhichhavetodowithpolicy,procedures,andactivities.Goals,strategiesandrecommendationsareincludedineachsectionandsummarizedinAppendixE.

TheTaskForcefirmlybelievesthatDelawareneedstoprovideaneducationalenvironmentintegratedwithtechnologythatalignswiththeneedsofstudentsastheyprogressdownthepathtobeingcollegeandcareerready.IfDelawareisseriousaboutcreatinganeducationalenvironmentthatmatchestheneedsofstudentswhoareconstantlyengagedwithtechnologyoutsidetheschool,studentswhosepathstocareers,whetherthroughcollegeordirectlyintocareers,aremorerigorousandtrulydifferentfrompathsofearliergenerations,thenthestateshouldadopt,implementandfundthegoals,strategiesandrecommendations.

Notallgoals,strategies,andrecommendationshavedirectbudgetimplications,butthosethatdomustbeaddressed.Theremustbeconsistent,dedicatedfundingstreamstoaddress:

thenetworkcore,broadbandaccess,InternetaccessandassociatedservicesasprovidedbytheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation;

internalschoolnetworks,includingwirelessaccess,toachievea5–7yearreplacementcycle;

atechnologyallocationfundthatcanbeusedtopurchaseorleasecomputingdevices,providetechnicalsupport,andprovideforprofessionallearningforeducators;

thematchingprovisionsoftheTechnologyBlockGrantfortechnologysupport; theexpansionandgrowthofeLearningDelaware; astatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources; theperstudentcostofthelearningmanagementsystemforK‐12studentuse;and assistivetechnologyforstudentswithdisabilities.

8


Budget Recommendation Summary

FY17 Amount PurposeBudgetRecommendation1

$3,000.0 Increasesthebandwidthofelementaryschoolsto100Mbpsandallsecondaryschoolsto1GbpsandassociatedcoreservicesatDTI*

BudgetRecommendation5

NoCost ChangesEpiloguelanguagefortheTechnologyBlockGrant(FY16EpilogueSection344)toinclude“instructionalpersonnel”


$1,000.0 IncreasesTechnologyBlockGrant*


$48.0 IncreasesthebudgetfortheLearningManagementSystemtoaccommodateadditionalstudentparticipation**


$1,200.0 Increasesbandwidthforallschoolsto1GbpsandassociatedcoreservicesatDTItoalignwiththeFCC/SETDAguidelinesfor2017‐2018

BudgetRecommendation3/4

$1,250.0 Establishes anE‐rateCategory2fundingstream


$2,650.0 MovesexistingfundingforassessmentcomputerstoTechnologyBlockGrant


$1,000.0 IncreasesTechnologyBlockGrant (minimumamount)


NoCost AdjuststhematchingprovisionfortechnologysupportintheTechnologyBlockGrantsothematchisagainsttheblockgrantratherthantheFY98match


$500.0 IncreasesfundingforeLearningDelaware(DDOE)tosupportonlineprofessionallearning,collaborationopportunities,andastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources


TBD –Fall2016

Increasesfundingforassistive technologybaseduponDDOE'scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology,perFY15EpilogueSection307


$1,000.0 IncreasesTechnologyBlockGrant (minimumamount)


$250.0 IncreasesfundingforeLearningDelaware(DDOE)tosupportonlineprofessionallearning,collaborationopportunities,andastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources

*IncludedinDDOE'ssubmittedbudgetrequestforFY17andincludedintheGovernor'sRecommendedBudgetwithinDTI.

**IncludedinDDOE'ssubmittedbudgetrequestforFY17with$30.0includedintheGovernor'sRecommendedBudgetforactualcosts.$18.0foradditionalstudentparticipationnotincluded.

TheTaskForcebelievesthattheresultwillbeaneducationinfrastructureandteachingandlearningecosystemthatwillbeabletogrowandprogresswiththeneedsofallstudentsinthestate.Theresultantecosystemwillprovidetheappropriatetools,resourcesandsupportforDelaware’shard‐workingeducatorsandstudentssothatthestudentsthriveandtheycontributepositivelytoDelaware’seconomyandculture.

9


TaskForceonStateEducationalTechnology

AReporttothe148thGeneralAssemblyonthe

StateEducationalTechnologyPlan

March30,2016

10


Introduction Technologyhasincreasinglytransformedthewaypeoplelivetheirlives,influencingsuchaspectsascommunication,artisticendeavors,andmethodsofteachingandlearning.Educationacrossthenationisstrugglingtokeepupwiththeneedsofcompanieshiringitsgraduates,collegesanduniversitieshavinghigherexpectationsandpossiblymostimportant,strugglingtokeepupwiththeneedsofits“clients,”thechildrenintheeducationsystem.Thisstruggleisdue,inlargepart,tothefactthattechnologicalinnovationinthepasthalfcenturyhasvirtuallyimpactedallsectorsoftheU.S.economyatanincreasingpace.Asaresult,employersarerequiringnewskillsetsfromtoday’sgraduates.Collegesareadjustingtoemployers’needsaswellasotherneedsofstudents,thuscreatingdifferentexpectationsforhighschoolgraduates.Studentsgrowingupinatechnologicallyinfusedculturelearndifferently,interactdifferentlyandengagewithtechnologydailyinallaspectsoftheirlives.

Aseducatorscontinuallystrivetofindthebestwaystoconnectwithtoday’sdigitallearners,theysearchforinnovativewaystointegratenewtechnologiesaspartofthatprocessineffortstoincreasestudentachievement,shrinkaccessibilitygaps,andpreparestudentsforaglobaleconomy.Technology,whenintegratedeffectivelyintoteachingandlearning,canbeapowerfultoolthatextendslearningbeyondtheclassroomwalls.TheeducationallandscapeinDelawarenowincludes;podcasting,blogging,videoconferencing,blendedlearning,andpersonalizedlearning,andassuch,wemustrecognizeandsupporttechnologyasanessentialcomponentinengagingallstudentsmorefullyinlearning.

In1997,whenthefirstDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnology(DCET)StrategicPlan(FY1997‐FY1999)waswritten,computerswerescarceinourschools,notallclassroomswerewiredfortheInternet,andlaptopswerebulkyandexpensive.TheDCETvisionof“TheFirstStateinEducation:EveryClassroom,EveryTeacher,EveryChild”establishedthecommitment“tohelpempowerchildren,throughtheuseofinformationtechnology,toachievehigherstandardsineducation.”[1]AlthoughDelawarehasbeentoutedasaleaderinthenationformanyofourtechnologyefforts,whichhasledtomultipleaccolades,thereisstillmuchworktobedone.

Today,studentsandteachersareembracingnewtechnologiesatarapidpaceandarecomfortableusingitintheirdailylives.Tothatend,theDelaware148thGeneralAssemblypassedSenateConcurrentResolutionNo.22callingfortheestablishmentofataskforcetostudystateeducationaltechnologyandupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplan.

WhiletheTaskForcehasfollowedthedirectivefromtheGeneralAssemblytoupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplan,ithasputitsfocuslessonthetechnologyandmoreonwhatthetechnologycanbringintheteachingandlearningprocess.ThustheTaskForcehaskepttheDelawarestudentsandtheentireeducationenterprisetopofmindinitsworkbecausetechnologybenolongerbeviewedasanisolatedsilo.Instead,technologyinfuseseverypartofeducation.Tothatend,theplanhasbeencraftedwiththeintenttobeinextricablylinkedtobroaderstateplansandincoordinationwiththeDelawareDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology.

Thisplanfocusesontechnology’sroleinInfrastructureandLeadership,TeachingandLearning,andAssistiveTechnologyfromboththenationalandDelawareperspectivesleadingtostrategiestoaccomplishgoalsineachofthoseareas.Thestrategiesleadto

11


recommendations,someofwhichhavebudgetramificationsandsomeofwhichhavetodowithpolicy,procedures,andactivities.

ThewayweeducatestudentstodaymustkeeppacewithaneverchanginginterconnectedsocietyandDelawaremustpositionitselftodojustthat.Agrowingbodyofresearchfindsthat,undertherightcircumstances,theadoptionofnewtechnologieswillspreadbydiffusion.Recentstudiespurportthatthethreebiggestbarrierstotechnologyadoptionarethelackofleadershipsupport,lackoffinancialsupportfortrainingandinfrastructure,andlackofqualityprofessionaldevelopment.AcloserlookatthecurrenteducationallandscapeinDelawarehighlightstheneedtoaddressinfrastructureandleadership,teachingandlearning,andassistivetechnologythroughoutthestate.FollowingarekeymajortrendsanddevelopmentsaffectingcurrentandfutureDelawarestudentsandeducators.

Infrastructure and Leadership

National Perspective Infrastructureisdefinedasallaspectsofthenetworkthatconnectsstudents,teachers,andadministratorstoavastarrayofresourcesontheInternetandpeopleworldwideandthepersonneltoensurethatthenetworkscontinuetooperateefficientlyandeffectively.Justasthereisanunderlyingstructurecarryingwaterfromareservoirthroughacleaningandfilteringsystemundergroundtoahomeandthroughpipestoafaucetenablingaglassofwatertodrink,sotooatechnologicalinfrastructureleadingfromtheInternettotheLEAtotheschooltoastudent’sdesktopiscrucialtoaccesstheresourcesnecessarytolearnandteachinthe21stcentury.Leadershipisthelinchpinbetweenthetechnologyandteachingandlearningandassistivetechnology.Withoutthecommitmentofschool,district,stateandnationalleadershiptotheeffectiveandefficientuseoftechnologyinschoolsandensuringalleducatorsarepreparedandequallycommittedtousingthattechnology,enormousmonetaryinvestmentsoftaxpayermoneycanandwillbesquandered.

Bandwidth and Wi‐Fi Nationally,aneducationinfrastructurewasacceleratedbythecreationoftheE‐rateprogram.TheE‐rateprogram('E'standsforeducation)wasformedbytheTelecommunicationsActof1998toprovidediscountstoschoolsandlibrariesfortelecommunicationservices.TheE‐rate,thethirdlargestfederaleducationprogram,hadanearlygoalofconnectingallschoolstotheInternet.Overafewshortyears,thedemandforbandwidthineducationhasdoubledeverytwotothreeyears.Since2013,theFederalCommunicationsCommission(FCC)expandedthesizeoftheE‐rateprogramby60%‐from$1.5billionayearto$3.9billionayear–andincreasedafocusonwireless(Wi‐Fi)withintheschoolsinanattempttoensureeachcomputingdeviceinaschool,notjusteachschool,couldreachtheInternet.Thisfirstmajoroverhauloftheprogramin17years,dubbed“E‐rateModernization,”tookplacetoemphasizebroadbandaccessandprovideformoreequitableuseoffundsforinternalbroadbandconnectionsincludingwireless.[2]

Thegoalofthisincreaseinsupport,inadditiontoeffortstomaketheprogrammoretransparent,streamlinedandeasytouse,istoensurethatneitherbroadbandaccesstotheschoolsnorthedistributionofsignalswithinabuildingwillbeahindrancetoeducatorsandstudentsaccessingtheincrediblearrayofresourcesontheInternetorcommunicatingwith

12


theirpeersaroundtheworld.ThatgoalwillnotbereachedwithoutsubstantialeffortonthepartofstatesandLEAs.

However,manystudentsstilllackaccessathome,aconditionthatFCCCommissionerJessicaRosenworcelhasnamed“thehomeworkgap.”[3]AccordingtothePewCenter,approximatelyonethirdofhouseholdswithschool‐agedchildrenandincomesbelow$50,000inthecountrydonothavehigh‐speedbroadbandathome,andthislow‐incomegroupmakesupabout40%ofallfamilieswithschool‐agedchildren.[4]ProjectTomorrow,anot‐forprofitorganization,hasbeensurveyingstudents,teachersandparentsregardingtheirattitudesabout,anduseof,technologyfor13years.Inthisyear’ssurvey,theyaskedteachers,“AgreeorDisagree:Iamsometimesreluctanttoassigndigitally‐basedorInternetrequiredhomeworkorprojectstomyclasssincesomeofmystudentsmaynothavesafe,consistentaccesstotheInternetoutsideofschool.”TheresultsarebelowinTable1.[5]

Table1.NationalSampleofTeachersReluctanttoAssignDigitally‐basedHomeworkDuetoLackofDevicesorInternet

ConnectionatHomeResponse NationalpercentageStronglydisagree 5%Disagree 8%Neitheragreeordisagree 18%Agree 33%Stronglyagree 35%

Morethantwo‐thirdsofthissampleofthenation’steachershastoaltertheirplanstohelpstudentslearnbecauseofconcernregardingstudents’accesstoresourcesoutsideofschool.

Thereareafeweffortsonanationalleveltoalleviatethehomeworkgap.Forexample,inactiontakeninJune2015,theFCCvotedtoincludebroadbandconnectionsina$1.8billionfederalprogramthatsubsidizestelephoneservicesforlow‐incomepeople.[6]Inaddition,theDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmentisleadingasmalleffortin28communitiestoincreaseInternetaccessforlow‐incomefamilies,andtheprivatesector,inresponsetoproddingfromtheFCC,launchedConnect2Competein2011.[7]Thisprogram,offeredinpartnershipwithmajorcableproviders,offersInternetserviceforaslowas$9.95amonthandlow‐costdevicesaswelltostudentsandfamiliesthatqualifyfortheNationalSchoolLunchProgram.However,therealsolutiontothehomeworkgapwillbeatthestateandlocallevels,workingcloselywithtelecommunicationsprovidersandlocalbusinessestorecognizethedemandandneedforsufficientbandwidthforeveryoneinthecommunity.

Federal Leadership TheU.S.DepartmentofEducationestablishedanOfficeofEducationalTechnology(OET)asapartoftheOfficeoftheSecretaryofEducationduringtheClintonAdministration.CurrentinitiativesfromtheOfficeincludetheConnectEDprogramtohelpschoolsgetconnectedtobroadbandInternet;workingtoensurethereisequalaccesstotechnologyandinstructionalmaterialsforallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilities,regardlessofrace,colorornationalorigin;encouragingtheuseofopenlylicensededucationalresourcesorOER;advocatingforandprovidingprofessionallearning;workingtoensuretheprotectionofprivacyandsecurityforstudents,educatorsandallinvolvedinschools;andstriving“tobe

13


onthenexusoftransformativeresearchandthecurators(of)innovativeeventstoserveanimpactfulresourcetotheevolvingsystem.”TheOETalsohasworkedthroughouttheDepartmenttoassistinunderstandinghowtechnologycanfurtherthegoalsofotherOfficesandworkedacrossagenciessuchastheFederalCommunicationsCommissionwhenitdevelopedtheNationalBroadbandPlan.

TheOfficewasalsoresponsibleforcreatingthe2016NationalEducationTechnologyPlan,FutureReadyLearning:ReimaginingtheRoleofTechnologyinEducation.[8]TheplanhassectionsonLearning,Teaching,Leadership,AssessmentandInfrastructurewithagoalandrecommendationsineachsection.Thosegoalsare:

Learning:Alllearnerswillhaveengagingandempoweringlearningexperiencesinbothformalandinformalsettingsthatpreparethemtobeactive,creative,knowledgeable,andethicalparticipantsinourgloballyconnectedsociety.

Teaching:Educatorswillbesupportedbytechnologythatconnectsthemtopeople,data,content,resources,expertise,andlearningexperiencesthatcanempowerandinspirethemtoprovidemoreeffectiveteachingforalllearners.

Leadership:Embedanunderstandingoftechnology‐enablededucationwithintherolesandresponsibilitiesofeducationleadersatalllevelsandsetstate,regional,andlocalvisionsfortechnologyinlearning.

Assessment:Atalllevels,oureducationsystemwillleveragethepoweroftechnologytomeasurewhatmattersanduseassessmentdatatoimprovelearning.

Infrastructure:Allstudentsandeducatorswillhaveaccesstoarobustandcomprehensiveinfrastructurewhenandwheretheyneeditforlearning.[9]

Delaware Perspective WhileDelawarewasaleaderamongstatesinmanyaspectsoftechnology‐relatededucationinthepast,especiallyinconnectingschoolsandclassroomsbycreatingaK‐12networkin1997,Delawareisnolongerinthevanguard.Becauseoftheacceleratingdemandforaccesstobroadbandandtherichresourcesitcanbring,thestateneedstoprovideongoingexpansionandupdatingofthenetwork.DelawarealsowasoneofthefirststatesinthenationtofocusoneducationaltechnologybyprovidingstatewideleadershipwhentheLegislatureformedtheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologyattherecommendationofGovernorThomasR.Carperin1995.Thatleadershiphasbecomebifurcated,resultinginadiminishedcapacitytoleadandsupportLEAsastheyseektoprovidethebesteducationfortheirstudents.

Thereareanumberofelementstoinfrastructure,andallofthemarenecessaryforteachersandstudentstointegratetechnologythroughouttheteachingandlearningprocesstoengagestudentsandensuretheyarereadyforcollegeandcareers.Twokeyelementsareconnectionsfromthestudents’andteachers’computingdevicesthroughtotheInternet,andtechnicalsupporttoensurethedevicesandalltheconnectionsareworkingwell.Anotherfactor,professionallearningandotherassistanceforeducatorstohelpthemhavetheinstructionalandmanagementsupportnecessarytobesuccessfulintegratingtechnologyintolearning,isaddressedintheTeachingandLearningsection.

14


Bandwidth and Wi‐Fi In1994,Delaware,throughtheOfficeofInformationServices(nowtheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation)createdtheK‐12DelawareEducationNetwork(DEN)withtheresultbeingthatInternetaccessbecamethestandardratherthantheexceptionthroughoutDelaware’spublicschools.Morespecifically,beginningin1996,theDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnology(DCET)wiredeverysinglepublicschoolclassroomwithvoice,data,coaxial,andfiberopticscablewithatleastonedataportfullyconnectedtotheDelawareEducationNetwork(DEN)andtheInternetwithaT1line(1.4Mbps)toeachschool.ThiseffortmadeDelawarethefirststateinthenationtohaveInternetandwideareanetworkaccessineverypublicschoolclassroom.Forthestate'sefforts,theDCETwasawardedaComputerworldSmithsonianAwardforClassroomNetworkingin1998.TheDCETthenpurchasedserversforthestatewidepupilaccountingsystem,upgradedthelocalareanetwork(LAN)electronics(hubsandswitches)intheschools,andimplementedtheCATV/VideoBroadcastProjectsoschoolscouldbroadcastacabletelevisionandmultiplevideosignalstoeveryclassroom.

TheDelawareDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation(DTI)–Engineering&Telecommunicationshascontinuedthisworksince2003bysupportingtheK‐12network,includingmanagingthelocalnetworksineveryparticipatingK‐12schoolandtheoverallK‐12wideareanetwork,managingalloftheswitchesandroutersineachschool,providingfilteredInternetconnectivitytoeachschool,managingthefirewallsthatprotectthisnetworkandahostofotherservicesrelatedtosecurityandantivirusprotection.Additionalsupportservicesincludeprovidingsecureaccesstothestatenetwork,listservicesfordistributedmessaginganda24/7servicedeskforissuemanagementandoutageresolution.

Withinthelastfiveyears,DTIhasprovidedthreemajorupgradesandenhancementstotheK‐12network–anupgradingofagingswitches,theimplementationofane‐mailsolution,andanupgradeofthevideoconferencingcoreservices.

AccordingtoEducationSuperhighway(ESH),anationalnot‐for‐profitorganizationthatisfocusedonupgradingInternetaccessineveryclassroomintheU.S.,Delawareisdoingratherwellwithitsconnectivitycomparedtootherstates,yetitstillhasawaytogotoensureallstudentshaveaccesstothetoolsandresourcesimportanttoensuretheyarecollegeandcareerready.[10]OnemeasureESHusesisthepercentageofschoolsthatarereadyfordigitallearningtoday,measuredbythenumberofschoolsthathaveaminimumof100kbpsperstudent,astandardrecommendedbytheStateEducationalTechnologyDirectorsAssociation(SETDA)andincorporatedintothegoalsoftheFCC’sE‐ratemodernizationprogram.[11]Bythatmeasure,only52%oftheDelawareschoolshavereachedtheminimumgoalestablishedbySETDAandtheFCCforthe2014‐2015schoolyear.Anothermeasureiswhetherornotaschoolhasthefiberconnectionsneededtomeetbandwidthtargets,andbecauseofthestate’spreviousefforts,100%oftheschoolshavefiber.

OthermeasuresofbandwidthwerecapturedinasurveyofLEAstakeninlatefall2015regardingtheirinfrastructures.Onequestionaddressedtheneedtoconnectstudentandteacherdevicestowireless(Wi‐Fi)inordertoensuretheyhaveubiquitousaccesswherevertheyareonacampus.Theresultsfromthesurveyshowasubstantialneed.

15


Table2.PercentoftheDevicesinanLEAthatConnectviaWireless

PercentofDevices PercentofLEAs0%‐10% 0%11%‐25% 0%26%‐50% 22%51%‐75% 41%76%‐100% 38%

AlthoughsomeLEAsmayconnecttheirdevicesthroughhardwires,moreandmorepreferthecost‐savingsandflexibilityprovidedbywireless,especiallyasmoreandmoreportabledevicesareusedinschools.

WithE‐ratemodernization,thereisatremendousopportunitytoupgradetheinternaltelecommunicationsinfrastructure,includingwireless,ofDelawareschoolswiththesupportofE‐rateCategory2fundsatgreatcostsavings.WithE‐rateCategory2services,eachschoolcanrequestupto$150perstudentovera5‐yearperiod.UsingE‐ratediscountdataandstudentenrollmentforthe2015‐2016schoolyear,therewere135,152studentswhichmeansourschoolscanrequestover$20million($20,272.8)inE‐rateCategory2servicesthatwillbediscountedby$14,604.5(72.04%)withthebalance,overthefive‐yearfundingcycle,of$5,668.3beingtheresponsibilityoftheschools.

AnevaluationofE‐rateapplicationsforthe2015‐2016schoolyearshowsthatonlyninedistrictsandfourchartersappliedforCategory2fundsinthefirstyearofthefive‐yearcycle.DiscussionswiththeLEAsconcerningE‐rateapplicationsforthe2016‐2017schoolyearresultedineightdistrictsandfourchartersintendingtofile.Thisgivesatotalof13districts(somedistrictsarefilinginbothyears)andeightcharterschoolsinthefirsttwoyears–lessthanhalfofourLEAs.Thereisavarietyofreasonswhylessthanhalfhaveapplied,buttimeandeffort,understandingtheprogramandprocess,recentupgrades(andrealizingthattheyhavefiveyearstoaccessE‐ratefunds),andlackoffundsfortheschoolshareheadthelist.Currently,thisentirecostfallsontheLEAseventhoughtraditionallythestatehassupportedthetelecommunicationsinfrastructure.

AdditionalsavingscouldbegeneratedbyastatewideRFPforwirelessservicesandpotentiallyDTIoverseeingthestatewidewirelessinfrastructure.Theinfrastructuresurveyasked,“WouldyourLEAconsiderparticipatinginastatewideRFPandassociatedawardwiththeintentofreducingcostsofwirelessaccessinyourschool(s)?”Eighty‐fourpercentoftherespondentssaidtheywouldconsiderparticipatinginthestatewideRFP.

AcrucialelementinmakingsurestudentsandteacherscanaccesstheInternetisensuringthenetworkisworkingeffectivelyandefficiently,andthattakesskilledtechnicians.Likemoststates,DelawareischallengedtoprovideappropriatetechnicalsupportacrossallLEAs.

TheinfrastructuresurveyconductedbytheTaskForcegleanedtheequivalentofapproximately150fulltimetechnicalsupportpersonnelacrossourLEAs.Thesepersonnelsupportinstructionalandadministrativecomputingdevices(computersandtablets),servers,wiredandwirelessnetworks,interactivewhiteboards,audioenhancementssystems,printers,andavarietyofothertechnologies.Justlookingattheapproximately110,000instructionalcomputingdevicesinourschools,theratioofinstructionalcomputing

16


devicestosupportpersonnelisapproximately733to1.Thestandardforbusinessisatleastonetechnologysupportpersonper150devices.Whileeducationcurrentlycannotaffordsuchaninvestment,thepaucityoftechnologysupportjeopardizesnotonlyLEAs’investmentsinthetechnologyitself,butmoreimportant,students’learning.

In2014,astudybyBroadbandNow.com[12]andothersestimatedthat16%ofDelawareresidentsqualifiedasunderservedforbroadbandservicesbecauseeitherbroadbandservicewasnotavailableorthecostofbroadbandwasconsideredaboveareasonablemarketprice.SincethattimeDelawarehasexperiencedbroadbandexpansioninsomeareas,butobstaclestoadoption,includingcostanddigitalliteracyhaveshownnoimprovement.Thishomeworkgapdisproportionatelyimpactsrural,westernKentandSussexcountieswithsomeestimatessuggestingthatashighas40%offamilieslivingintheseareasmaynotcurrentlyhaveapathtosecurebroadbandservice.

Leadership TheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnology(DCET)wasformedasaresultofrecommendationsmadebytheEducationalTechnologyCommitteeinareporttitled“EducationalTechnology:AReporttotheGovernor,Legislature,andCitizensofDelaware”datedFebruary1995.Thecommitteewasestablishedin1994byHouseJointResolutionNo.27.Therewere29specificrecommendationsthatweresummarizedintosevenkeystrategiesinthereport:

CreatetheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologyastheoperatingandsupportorganizationfortheeducationnetwork.

EstablishaDelawareEducationNetworkandensureequalaccesstoandequityinthenetwork.

Wireeveryclassroomandprovidecomputingresourcesby1997.

Trainteachers,librarians,andschooladministratorsintheapplicationanduseoftechnology.

Identifycosts,securefunding,andprovideappropriatetechnologicalresourcesfortheschools.

PromotetheactivitiesoftheCentertothebenefitoftheeducationalcommunityandinsupportoftheeconomicdevelopmentobjectivesoftheState.

Collaborateandpartnerwithpubliclibraries,nonpublicschools,andthebusinesscommunity.

Inthespringof1995,theDelawareLegislatureacceptedtherecommendationofGovernorThomasR.CarpertoestablishtheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnology(DCET).TheCenterisintendedtocreateamoderneducationaltechnologyinfrastructureinDelaware’spublicschoolsforthepurposeofenablingstudents,throughtheuseofeducationaltechnologytomeettheacademicstandardssetbytheStateBoardofEducationandtodeveloptheskillsneededbyaworld‐classworkforce.

TheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologywasgovernedbyaten‐memberBoardconsistingofthreememberswhohadexpertiseinthefieldofcomputerinformation,threepublicschoolsuperintendents,twopublicschoolteachers,theStateSuperintendentorhisdesignee,andtheExecutiveDirectoroftheOfficeofInformationSystems.TheStateLibrarian,theStateBudgetDirector,ControllerGeneral,SecretaryofFinanceortheirdesignees,andonerepresentativedesignatedbyeachofthePresidentsofthethree

17


Delawarepublicinstitutionsofhighereducation,wereex‐officio,non‐votingmembersoftheBoard.TheDCETOperationsofficiallybeganonFebruary1,1996withthehiringoftheExecutiveDirector.

Inaveryshortperiodoftime,Delawareleapedfrombeingtechnologypoorineducationtobuildingasolidfoundationforgrowthineducationaltechnology.

TheDCETlaunchedanumberofprojectsoverthepastnearlytwodecades.Thefirstwastheclassroomnetworkingproject,inwhich(asnotedabove)everypublicschoolclassroomwaswiredwithvoice,data,coaxial,andfiberopticscablewithatleastonedataportfullyconnectedtotheDelawareEducationNetwork(DEN)andtheInternet.

Afterthecompletionofthewiringproject,DCETimplementedtheServerandInfrastructureEnhancementProjectandtheCATV/VideoBroadcastProject.TheServerandInfrastructureEnhancementProjectallowedDCETtopurchasetheserversforthestatewidepupilaccountingsystem,ensureaninstructionalserverineveryschool,andbegintoupgradetheLANelectronicsintheschools.TheCATV/VideoBroadcastProjectensuredtheschoolscouldbroadcastacabletelevisionandmultiplevideosignalstoeveryclassroom.ThegoalfortheseupgradeswastosaveLEAsbothtimeandmoney,whetherbycuttingdownontravelexpensesbyconductingmeetingsthroughthevideoconferencingsystemorusingthepowerofvolumepurchasingfore‐mailservicesorexpandingthespeedandefficiencyoftheoverallK‐12networkthroughbetter,moreup‐to‐dateswitches.Inaddition,theLegislatureprovidedathree‐yearfundingstreamtothedistrictsforclassroomtechnologythatincludedamatchingcapabilityofusingthetaxbasetogeneratefundingfortechnologymaintenanceandsupport.

Thusinthelate1990sandearly2000s,DelawaremadeatremendouscommitmenttomaketechnologyanimportanttoolintheclassroombyplacingtheroadbedforconnectingDelawarepublicschoolstotheinformationhighway.However,in2003,theDCETwassplitupforoperationalefficiencyatthestatelevel,withthetechnicalstaffmovingtotheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformationandtheeducationstaffmovingtotheDelawareDepartmentofEducationandrevampingtheBoardofDirectorswithaneducationalfocus.In2009,theDCETBoardofDirectorswasdisbanded.Thepotentiallyunanticipatedsideeffectofthisactionwastherewasnospecificleadershipgroupforeducationaltechnologybecauseoversightandbudgetingfelltotwoseparateorganizations:DTIandDDOE.After2003,DCETwaschallengedbyinconsistentfinancescombinedwiththeresurgenceofWebapplicationsandsubscriptionservicesthatplacelargerdependencyonInternetaccess.

Inthepast10years,budgetaryconcernshavelimitedthegrowthoftechnologyineducation,unfortunatelyatatimewhentheuseoftechnologyinvirtuallyeveryotheraspectofoursocietyhasaccelerated.WehavebeenabletoensurethatallschoolshavemigratedfromaT1dataline(1.4Mbps)toaminimumtoa10Mbpsdataline,andhaveimplementedstatewideonlineassessment,afeatmanystatesarestillstrugglingwith.OursuccessfulonlineassessmentimplementationwasonlypossiblebecauseofDelaware’spreviouseffortsinestablishingastatewidetelecommunicationsinfrastructureandastatewidepupilaccountingsystem.

18


Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Infrastructure and Leadership

Goal 1 – Leadership ThestatewillhaveanoversightorganizationtoprovidestrategicguidanceforeducationaltechnologyforthestateandLEAs.

Strategies 1. FormtheCouncilonEducationalTechnologywiththefollowingresponsibilities:

a. NeedsAssessment–Establishaprocessforidentifyingongoingtechnologyandhumanresourceneedsattheclassroom,campus,districtandstatelevels,includingatechnologyinventory.

b. Policy–Basedupontheneedsassessmentandotherconsiderations,recommendpolicyannually.

c. Budget–Recommendabudgetforstatewideeducationaltechnologyexpendituresannually.

d. Planning–Developongoing(three‐year)strategicplansforthestatethat“mesh”withotherplanningeffortsattheDepartmentofEducation(DDOE),theDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation(DTI),andotheragenciesanddevelopaframeworkandprocessforlocalplanningthatcoordinateswithotherplansatthelocallevelaswellasthestatestrategicplan.

e. SafetyandSecurity–Defineastatewideacceptableusepolicyandproceduresandaprocesstoensurealleducatorsandstudentsagreetothepolicy;ensureallLEAsarecompliantwiththefederalregulationsincludingtheChildren’sInternetProtectionAct(CIPA),Children'sOnlinePrivacyProtectionAct(COPPA),andFamilyEducationalRightsandPrivacyAct(FERPA).

f. Procurement–WorkcloselywiththeGovernmentSupportServicestoestablishafocalpointwithineducationforthepreparationoftechnology‐relatedRFPs,vendornegotiations,andsitelicensesforsoftwarespecifictoeducationtooptimizecoststhroughconsolidatingdemand.

Rationale: TheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologystaffwasre‐assignedtoDDOEandDTIin2003andtheDCETBoardofDirectorswasdisbandedin2009.TheunanticipatedsideeffectofdisbandingtheDCETBoardofDirectorswasthattheAdministrationandLegislaturelosttheleadershipgroupwithaunifiedvoicetokeepeducationaltechnologyissuesintheforefront.Withtheeconomicdownturnandoversightandbudgetingfallingtotwoseparateorganizationswithcompetingpriorities,Delawarehasfallenbehindandisintheunenviablepositionofplayingcatch‐up.

ThisisnottosaythatDelawarehasdonenothingtoadvanceeducationaltechnologyandourinfrastructuresince2009.Wejusthaven’tdoneenough.In2010,ouremphasiswasensuringtheinfrastructurewasinplaceforonlineassessment,notnecessarilydigitallearning.Ifallweweretryingtodowassupportonlineassessment,wehaveasufficientinfrastructureinplace.Ifwewanttosupportbothonlineassessmentanddigitallearning,whichwedo,wehavefallenbehind.

19


Thetimehascometorefocusoureffortssoourstudentsandteachersaresuccessfulbyhavingaccesstotechnologyonadailybasis.InourDelawarepublicschools,thisstartswithleadershipatthestatelevelandprioritizingtoensurethat:(1)Ourtelecommunicationsinfrastructurehasthesufficientbandwidthforstudents;(2)Ourstudentshaveaccesstocomputingdevices;and(3)Ourteachershavesufficienttrainingtointegratetechnologytoutilizeandrelyondigitallearningopportunities.

Recommendation1.1.1: PresentLegislationtoformtheCouncilonEducationalTechnologythatwillbesupportedwithstafffromtheDDOEandDTI.TheCouncilshouldmeetquarterlyandhavenomorethan15memberscomprisedofstakeholderrepresentativesfromacrossthestate.

Goal 2 – Broadband and Support ThestatewidenetworkcorethatprovidesandsupportsbroadbandaccessandinternalnetworkstoallDelawarepublicschoolswillbemaintainedandgrownbyprovidingcontinuousimprovementandexpansionoftheinfrastructuretomeettheneedsoftheeducationcommunity.

Strategies 1. Providethenecessaryresourcestoensurethatthenetworkcore,broadbandaccess,

Internetaccess,andassociatedservicesprovidedbytheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformationcontinuallyalignwiththeStateEducationalTechnologyDirectorsAssociation(SETDA)recommendationsfromTheBroadbandImperativethatareincorporatedintotheFederalCommunicationsCommission(FCC)E‐ratemodernizationorderasagoal.

Rationale: In2010,Delawarewasabletosuccessfullyimplementastatewideonlineassessmentsysteminaveryshortperiodoftimebecauseofpreviouscommitmentstothestate’stelecommunicationsinfrastructureandstatewidepupilaccountingsystem.Atthatpoint,allschoolswereupgradedfromaT1line(1.4Mbps)to10Mbpsandtheswitchinginfrastructurewasupgraded.Ahalfdecadelater,10Mbpsstillremainsasthebaselinefundedbythestate,althoughLEAshavetheoptionofincreasingthisbandwidthattheircostcreatingequityissuesacrossthestate.

A10Mbpstelecommunicationslineisonlycapableofsupportingdigitallearninginaschoolwithlessthan100studentsaccordingtoguidelinesfromSETDA’sTheBroadbandImperative.Theguidelinesstatethatbythe2014‐2015schoolyear,schoolsshouldhaveatleast100Mbpsper1,000students/staff.Inotherwords,aschoolwith100‐1,000studentsshouldhaveaminimumof100Mbpstosupportdigitallearning.Inthe2015‐2016schoolyear,only52%ofDelawareschoolsaremeetingthe2014‐2015schoolyearguidelinesforbandwidthasdeterminedbySETDAandtheFCC.TheinvestmentrecommendedintheplanwillbringallschoolsinlinewiththeSETDA/FCCguidelines.

Inrecognitionofthegrowinguseofbroadbandthroughoutschools,SETDAandtheFCChavesetrecommendedguidelinesforthe2017‐2018

20


schoolyearat1Gbpsper1,000students/staff.Thismeansby2017‐2018,aschoolwith100‐1,000studentsshouldhaveaminimumof1Gbps(1,000Mbps)tosupportdigitallearning.

Recommendation2.1.1: Ensureallelementaryschoolshavesufficientresourcestosupportacapacityof100Mbpsbandwidthandallmiddleandhighschoolshavesufficientresourcesfor1Gbps(1,000Mbps)forthe2016‐2017schoolyearaswellasassociatedincreasesatthenetworkcoretosupportthebandwidthincrease.

Recommendation2.1.2: InFY18,providesufficientresourcestoincreasebandwidthinallschoolsto1Gbps(1,000Mbps)toaligntotheSETDA/FCCguidelinesforthe2017‐2018schoolyear.

Recommendation2.1.3: BeginninginFY19,DTIandDDOEwillconductanannualevaluationofbandwidthrequirementsbyschoolandbandwidthadjustedtoensurealignmentwithSETDAandFCCguidelines.

2. Ensureadequateresourcessothatinternalschoolnetworks,includingwirelessaccess,haveareplacementcycleof5–7yearsthattakesadvantageofthefundingcycleofCategory2oftheE‐ratemodernizationorder.

Rationale: TheE‐rateprovidesatremendousopportunitytoupgradetheinternaltelecommunicationsinfrastructureofDelawareschoolswiththesupportofCategory2fundsatgreatcostsavings.WithE‐rateCategory2services,eachschoolcanrequestupto$150perstudentovera5‐yearperiod.UsingE‐ratediscountdataandstudentenrollmentforthe2015‐2016schoolyear,therewere135,152studentswhichmeansourschoolscanrequestover$20million($20,272.8)inE‐rateCategory2servicesthatwillbediscountedby$14,604.5(72.04%)withthebalance,overthefive‐yearfundingcycle,of$5,668.3beingtheresponsibilityoftheschools.

AnevaluationofE‐rateapplicationsforthe2015‐2016schoolyearshowsthatonlyninedistrictsandfourchartersappliedforCategory2fundsinthefirstyearofthefive‐yearcycle.DiscussionswiththeLEAsconcerningE‐rateapplicationsforthe2016‐2017schoolyearresultedineightdistrictsandfourchartersintendingtofile.Thisgivesatotalof13districts(somedistrictsarefilinginbothyears)andeightcharterschoolsinthefirsttwoyears–lessthanhalfofourLEAs.Thereareavarietyofreasonswhylessthanhalfhaveapplied,buttimeandeffort,understandingtheprogramandprocess,recentupgrades(andrealizingthattheyhavefiveyearstoaccessE‐ratefunds),andlackoffundsfortheschoolshareheadthelist.Currently,thisentirecostfallsontheLEAseventhoughtraditionallythestatehassupportedthetelecommunicationsinfrastructure.

AdditionalsavingscouldbegeneratedbyastatewideRFPforwirelessservicesandpotentiallyDTIoverseeingthestatewidewirelessinfrastructure.Theinfrastructuresurveyasked,“WouldyourLEAconsiderparticipatinginastatewideRFPandassociatedawardwiththeintentofreducingcostsofwirelessaccessinyourschool(s)?”Eighty‐fourpercentof

21


therespondentssaidtheywouldconsiderparticipatinginthestatewideRFP.

Recommendation2.2.1: ProvidesufficientresourcesfromthestatetoensureallLEAsareabletotakemaximumadvantageofCategory2oftheE‐rate.

Recommendation2.2.2: ExplorethepossibilityofworkingwiththePublicServiceCommissionandtheLegislaturetoestablishaDelawareUniversalServicesFundforE‐rate,notunliketheDelawareBroadbandFund.

3. EnsurethatLEAshaveadequateresourcesandtrainedpersonneltosupportandmaintaintheirdevices,internalnetworksandbroadbandcomingintotheschools.

Rationale: Inordertosupportthistechnologycapacityinanever‐increasinglycomplexInternetandWi‐Fienvironment,LEAsneedtohavestaffmember(s)trainedtosupportthenetworksanddevices.WhenLEAswereaskedwhattheyneedwithrespecttotechnology,thesecondhighestneedselectedwas“Moretechnicalsupporttokeepcomputersandapplicationsrunning.”AccordingtotheInfrastructuresurvey,thereareapproximately150FTEsupportingover110,000instructionalcomputingdevicesplusallthenetworksinDelawareschools,aratioofapproximately733to1.Contrastthatwitharatioof150devicespertechnologysupportpersoninbusinesstoday,andourLEAsaredefinitelylackingthecapacitytofullysupportthecomputingdevicesneededfordigitallearning.

Recommendation2.3.1: Asthestateprovidesflexibilityinfundingstreams,theLEAsneedtodeterminesufficienttechnologystaffingtosupportthenetworksanddevicesintheLEA,withaninitialtargetofoneFTEper500devices.

4. Enterintopartnershipswithtelecommunicationsproviders,carriersandappropriateagenciesofthestatetoensureeverypartofthestatehassufficientbroadbandtosupportstudentsathome.

Rationale: TheNationalEducationalTechnologyPlan2016(NETP16)addressestheissueofubiquitousconnectivityforstudentsatschoolandathome.Tocreateaneffectiveanytime,anywherelearningenvironment,thereneedstobereliableconnectivity,justlikewaterandelectricity,bothinschoolandoutsideofschool.TheFederalCommunicationsCommissionhasdubbedthelackofaccessathomeasthehomeworkgap.

In2014,astudybyBroadbandNow.comandothersestimatedthat16%ofDelawareresidentsqualifiedasunderservedforbroadbandservicesbecauseeitherbroadbandservicewasnotavailableorthecostofbroadbandwasconsideredaboveareasonablemarketprice.SincethattimeDelawarehasexperiencedbroadbandexpansioninsomeareas,butobstaclestoadoption,includingcostanddigitalliteracyhaveshownnoimprovement.Thishomeworkgapdisproportionatelyimpactsrural,westernKentandSussexCountieswithsomeestimatessuggestingthatashighas40%offamilieslivingintheseareasmaynotcurrentlyhaveapathtosecurebroadbandservice.

22


Withoutequitableaccesstobroadband,teachersarehesitanttoassignhomeworkthatmayrequireaccesstotheInternetandstudentsarenotabletoaccessthewiderangeofcontentfortheirschoolworkortocreateandsharecontentwiththeirpeersintheirLEAoracrossthestate.Stepsneedtobetakentoensureallstudentshaveaccesstotheconnectivitytheyneedtofollowtheirinterestsaswellastheirschoolwork.

Recommendation2.4.1: EncouragetheCouncilonEducationalTechnologytoformaworkinggrouptofurtherdelveintothebestpathforwardtoensurerobustbroadbandconnectivityinthecommunityandhomes.

Teaching and Learning

National Perspective Intheareaofteachingandlearning,changeshavebeendrivenbythedesireforhigherexpectationsforstudentsasevidencedbytheadoptionoftheCommonCoreStateStandardsaswellasnewapproachestomeasuringtheextenttowhichstudentsareattainingthosestandardsthroughonlineassessments.Instructionalmaterials,forsolongdominatedbytextbooks,alsoaremorphingbecauseoftechnology.Moreandmore,teachershaveaccesstoanincreasingrangeofcontenttoengageandenlightentheirstudentsbecauseofaccesstoaplethoraofinformationontheInternet.Finally,newstandardsandwaysofassessment,coupledwiththeinfluxoftechnologyarechangingthewaysstudentsandteachersinteractandhowtheyspendtheirtimetogetherandapart.

Common Core State Standards and Online Assessments InJuneof2010,theNationalGovernorsAssociationandtheCouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficersreleasedthefinalversionoftheCommonCoreStateStandards(CCSS)afteryearsofresearchandwork.BetweenFebruary2010andNovember2011,allofthestatesbutAlaska,Nebraska,TexasandVirginia(andonlyEnglishLanguageArtsinMinnesota)adoptedtheCCSS.Asaresult,virtuallyallstates,includingDelawarenowhavemorerigorousstandardsforstudentsforwhatstudentsneedtoknowandbeabletodoinpreparingALLstudentsforsuccessinbothcollegeandcareer.

TheCommonCorestandardsandtheInternationalSocietyforTechnologyinEducation(ISTE)StandardsforTeachersbothrecognizethateducationasit’salwaysbeendoneisnotenoughinthedigitalage.Theybothshareanemphasisonusingtechnology,notfortechnology’ssake,butasatoolformasteringhigher‐levelthinkingskills,focusingonresearchandmedialiteracy,creativity,collaboration,problemsolving,andcriticalthinking.

Between2001,whenVirginiabeganitsonlineassessmentprogram,and2012,33stateshadofferedsomekindofsubstantialonlinetesting,includingDelaware.Thesetestswerevirtuallyallmultiple‐choice,automatingthebubble‐inanswersheetsfromformerpaperandpenciltests.Themovetoonlineassessmentsrequiredadditionalbandwidthcapabilitiesinschoolsandcausedsomedistrictstoincreasethenumberofdevicestheyusedforassessmentorshufflecomputersnormallyusedforinstructionintoroomsthatwereusedforonlineassessmentduringtestingtime.Bythe2015‐2016schoolyear,“the

23


majorityofstate‐mandatedend‐of‐yearsummativetestsstudentswilltakewillbeviacomputeradministrationandnotviapaper‐and‐pencilformat.Infact,only15percentoftheover800testsbeingofferedtograde3‐8studentsthisyearwillonlybeavailableinapaper‐and‐pencilformat.”[13]

Increase and Diversity of Devices Theproliferationoftechnologyinschoolscanbeseeninheadlinesalmosteveryday:“Schooldistrictbuysacomputerforeverystudent!”Seldomdothenewsstoriesdelveintowhatstudentsandteacherswillbedoingwiththetechnology,leavingtheimpressioninthepublicthatwhatisimportantisthetechnology,nothowthetechnologywillenablelearning.Thoughtfulschooldistrictleadersknowotherwise.Theyknowthattechnologycanprovideteachersandstudentswithnotonlyavastarrayofresources,butalsotransformtheentireprocessofeducation.Butthefactremainsthathavingthedevices,bandwidthandsystemsinplaceareanecessarybutnotsufficientaspectofthetransformationofeducationtoensureitmeetstheneedsofallstudentstopreparethemtobecollegeandcareerready.

Acrossthecountrytherehasbeenasignificantincreaseinthenumberofdevicesinschools,partiallyduetotheincreasingdiversityofformfactorsofdevices.Mobilephones,tablets,Chromebooks,laptopsanddesktops:allareusedintheteachingandlearningprocesseveryday.TheincreaseinthischangeismostevidentintabletsandChromebooks.TheiPadwasintroducedin2011andcaughtfireineducationasmoreandmoreapplicationsevolvedforit.YettheemergenceoftheChromebook,introducedin2012hasbeenevenmoreremarkable.Drivenbylowprices($200‐$250),easeofuseandmaintenanceandeasyintegrationwithGooglesystems,Chromebookshavemovedfrommakinguplessthan1%ofalldevicessoldtoschooldistrictsin2012to40%ofdevicessoldtoschooldistrictsinthethirdquarterof2014and51%ofdevicessoldinthethirdquarterof2015accordingtoareportfromFuturesourceConsulting.[14]

Thegrowthofonlineassessmentisanotherfactorthathasdrivenadditionaldevicesintheclassroom.And,finally,thephasingoutofoldsystems,mostnotablyWindowsXP,alsoisdrivingtheadditionofnewerdevicesintheclassroom.WindowsXP,releasedin2001,hadbeenthedominantoperatingsystemintheworldandinU.S.classrooms.DatafromPARCCandSmarterBalancedindicatedthatWindowsXPwason56%ofthecomputersschoolsplannedtouseforthefirstiterationoftheirtestsduringthe2014‐15schoolyear.MicrosoftannounceditwouldstopsupportingWindowsXPinApril2014.ThischangefromMicrosoftcausedasurgeinthepurchaseofnewdevices.[15]

Changing Approaches to Learning Enabled by Technology Withtheincreasedavailabilityoftechnology,teachersareusingdifferentinstructionalmodelsandusinginstructionaltimedifferently.Flippedclassrooms,blendedlearningandpersonalizedlearningallarebuzzwordsinthemediaandthroughoutdistricts.Inaflippedclassroom,studentsarerotatingbetweenface‐to‐faceinteractionswithteachersandonlinedeliveryofinstructionfromaremotelocation.Blendedlearning,asdefinedbyChristensen,HornandStaker,is“aformaleducationprograminwhichastudentlearnsatleastinpartthroughonlinelearningwithsomeelementofstudentcontrolovertime,place,pathand/orpaceandatleastinpartatasupervisedbrick‐and‐mortarlocationawayfromhome.”[16]AtleastpartofthisdefinitionhasbeenpickedupintheEveryStudentSucceedsAct,theDecember2015reauthorizationoftheElementaryandSecondaryEducationAct(ESEA).Thesenewapproachesfeaturemoreactivestudentlearning,asopposedtostudents

24


passivelylisteningtoteachersorjustwatchingavideo.Studentsareexpectedtobepresentedwithopportunitiestodelvedeeplyintotopicsandsolverealworldproblems.

Thesenewlearningapproachesareenabledtoalargedegreebyagrowingshiftininstructionalmaterialsfromprinttowarddigital.Accordingtoa2014reportfromMDR,approximatelyhalfofbothschooldistrictcurriculumandtechnologydirectorsenvisionedasignificantshifttowarddigitalcontentinthenextthreeyears.[17]BothFloridaandNorthCarolinahaveputrequireddigitalcontentinpolicywherebyFloridahassaidthatbythe2015‐2016schoolyear,50%ofinstructionalmaterialsfundingmustbespentondigital,stateadoptedmaterials.NorthCarolinatooktheultimatestepbysayingthatbythe2017‐18schoolyear,districtsshouldpurchaseonlydigitalinstructionalmaterials.Thisshiftisnotconfinedtothemeredigitizationoftextandaccesstovariousmedia;italsoincludeshowstatesanddistrictsstoreanddistributecontent.Themostprevalentandfastestgrowingmechanismisrepositories.Morestates–anddistricts‐arecreatingrepositoriesofdigitalcontent.Atleasthalfofthestateshavesomeformofcontentrepository.[18]

Thebusinessofinstructionalmaterialsalsoischanging,toalargedegreebecauseoftechnology.Teacherswantmoreflexibilityinthetypeofcontenttheywanttouseintheclassroom,themethodandmediaofdeliveryaswellasmoreflexibilityinthesizeofcontent–smallerchunksinadditiontofullcoursecurriculum.OpenEducationalResources(OER)providebothanalternativebusinessmodelanddifferentapproachtotheuseofinstructionalmaterials.OpenEducationalResourcesarematerialsthatareinthepublicdomainorreleasedunderanintellectualpropertylicensethatpermitstheirfreeuseandrepurposingbyothers.Theyalloweasyaccess,collaborationandsharingamongeducators;theyarelowornocost;theyoftenaredigital;andtheytypicallyarelicensedsothattheycanberemixed,reused,andrepurposed.Somestates,mostnotablyNewYork,UtahandWashington,havesignificantOERinitiativesunderwaythathaveresultedinthecreationofOERcontentforstudentsandteachers(NewYorkandUtah)andanidentificationandvettingofOERandpostingoftheresults(Washington).FinallytheU.S.DepartmentofEducationlaunchedaninitiativecalledGoOpenthatencouragesdistrictstoswitchtoOERandprovidessupportthroughmentordistricts,trainingandmakingcertainlearningmanagementsystemsaremoreaccessibleforOER.

Increase in Ways to Deliver Professional Learning Opportunities Thenotionofwell‐prepared,effectiveteachershasalwaysbeenatthecoreoflearningforstudents.Withthechangeinstandards,approachestoassessment,instructionalapproachestoenablestudentstomasterthestandardsaswellastheinfluxoftechnologythroughschools,theneedforhighqualityprofessionallearninghasneverbeengreater.Accordingtothereport,Teachers’ViewsonProfessionalDevelopment,“atypicalteacherspendsabout68hourseachyearonprofessionallearningactivitiestypicallydirectedbydistricts.[19]Whenself‐guidedprofessionallearningandcoursesareincluded,theannualtotalcomesto89hours.”Teachersandadministratorsgenerallyagreeonwhatgoodprofessionallearninglookslike:relevanttotheircontext,interactive,deliveredbysomeonewhounderstandstheteachers’experiences,andsustainedovertime.Twomodelsofdeliveryofprofessionallearningthatmatchbestwiththesecharacteristicsaredigitalliteracycoachesandonlinedeliveryofprofessionallearning.

Districtsthroughoutthenationareemployingdigitalliteracycoacheseffectivelyandsomestates,includingVirginiaandPennsylvania,haveimplementedcoachesstatewide.WhenpresentedwithtwentypossibleresponsestothequestionintheProjectTomorrowsurvey,

25


“Whichofthesetypesofprofessionaldevelopmentformatsdoyouthinkaremosteffectivetohelpteacherslearnhowtointegratetechnologywithininstructionintheirclassroom,”‘Inschoolpeercoachingandmentoring’wasthesecondmostpopularchoicebyteachersrespondingtothesurvey.Whensupportedbyjust‐in‐timeonlinevideos,onlineWebinarsandonlinecommunitiesofpracticetoallowteacherstoshareandcollaborate,thesesystemsareevenmoreeffective.Thecoachingmodelisjustemergingfromadolescence,butthelessonslearned–well‐trainedcoachesavailablefrequentlyandaprogramthatissustainedovertime–areshowingittobehighlyeffectivewhenimplementedwithfidelity.

Delaware Perspective

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Online Assessments DelawareadoptedtheCommonCoreStateStandards(CCSS)onAugust19,2010andhasremainedwiththestandardssincethattime.DelawareGovernorJackMarkell,whoco‐chairedtheNGAatthattime,ledtheadoptionprocessforstates.

ThepushtochangeDelaware’sstandardstoensurecollegeandcareerreadyexpectationsforallwasneeded.AsaFordhaminstitutereportin2010explained,Delaware’sEnglish/LanguageArts(ELA)standardswereamongtheworstinthecountry,whiletheCCSSELAstandardsweresignificantlysuperiortowhatourstudentsneededtoknowandbeabletodo.InMathematics,Delaware’sstandardswereconsidereddecent,yettheCCSSmathstandardswerealsodeemedsuperiortoourexistingstandards.

Delawarewasdeemedasoneofthestatesthathasbeenabletoimplementthesenewcollegeandcareerstandardswell.Forexample,Delaware’sCommonGroundforCommonCore(CGCC)trainingprovidedrigorous,year‐longprofessionallearningexperienceforschool‐basedteamsofeducatorsdesignedtobringeducatorsuptospeedonwhattheCommonCorestandardsare,theimplicationsforday‐to‐dayclassroominstruction,andtheshiftsnecessarytoensuretheCommonCoreissuccessfullyrolledout.

ArecentstudyconductedbyHarvardUniversityonDelawareandfourotherstatesconcludedthatteachersinDelawarehavemademajorchangesintheirlessonplansandinstructionalmaterials.Withthisshift,teachersandprincipalshavelargelyembracedthenewstandards.Thisreportalsoshowedthatteachersreportedturningtoamultitudeofonlinesources.Forexample,morethanonethirdofourteacherssurveyed(37%)indicatedthattheyusedtheOpenEducationalResourcetoolEngageNYandalmostone‐fourthofteachersusedLearnZillionforlessonplansalignedtoCommonCore.TeachersfeltstronglythatthesesourceshadbeenvaluabletotheminaligningtheirinstructiontoCCSS.

Delawarebegantestingonlinein2010inresponsetoeducatorsdesiringmoreflexibleandbetterdatathanwaspossiblewiththepriorsystem,andthestatemadetheshifttoonlineassessmentwithunprecedentedspeed.Inthesummer2008ataskforceidentifiedtwoprioritiesforstatewidetests–efficientscoringandtrackingdataovertime.Inwinterof2010thestatebeganreadinesstrainingsandstakeholdermeetingstobroadencommunications,conductedrapidfieldtestwithmultiplechecklistsinthespring,ensurednetworkconnectivity,studentinformationmanagementsystemsandadditionalhardwarewereinplaceinthesummerandinthefallof2010beganthelaunchoftheDelawareComprehensiveAssessmentSystem(DCAS).Asresultsbegantoflowtodistrictsinthespringandsummerof2011,thestatebeganstatewideprofessionaldevelopmentonusing

26


datafromonlinetests.Thisrapiddevelopmentcouldnothavehappenedwithoutcommitmentfromalllevelsofstategovernmentaswellasasolidstatewidetelecommunicationsnetworkandthepupilaccountingsystemsthatalreadywereinplace.

Additionaltestswereaddedinthe2011‐12schoolyearandbythe2012‐13schoolyearallDCASassessmentswereonlinewiththeexceptionofseveralendofcourseexams.Inthe2014‐15schoolyear,DelawareimplementedtheSmarterEnglishLanguageArtsandSmarterMathematicsassessments.Thesetestsarequitedifferentfromourlegacytests.Forexample,inELAouroldassessmentreliedheavilyonmultiple‐choicequestionsmeasuringreadingcomprehension.Ournewassessmentrequiresstudentstowriteshortanswersandlongeressays.Inmathematics,ournewassessmentrequiresstudentstoshowtheirworkandtodemonstratetheirmathematicalreasoning,nottosimplypickthecorrectanswer.

Theshifttothesenewassessmentshasreducedstatetestingtimebetween35‐45%pergradeleveltested.

Increase and Diversity of Devices Whiledefinitionsofdevicesandvarioustechnologieshavechangedovertimeasthetechnologiesthemselveshavechanged,forthepurposesofthisplan,afullyfunctioningdeviceisonewherestudentscaninputandcreatecontent,consumecontentbyreading,listeningandviewing,anddistributecontenttopeoplearoundtheworld.Thisincludesdesktopandlaptopcomputers,Chromebooksandtablets.ItdoesnotincludeeReaders,portablemediadevicesormobiledevicessuchassmartphones,althoughmanywouldarguethatasmartphoneshouldbeincluded.

TheidealandmosteffectiveandefficientscenarioforDelawarestudentsisforeverystudenttohaveafullyfunctioningdeviceatschoolandathome,arobustconnectiontotheInternet,anddevicesandconnectionsthatworkallthetime.Whilethisscenariomayseemloftyanddifficulttoreachineducation,itisthenormforvirtuallyeverybusinessinthestate.Itisnottoomuchtoexpectthatinthemiddleoftheseconddecadeofthe21stcentury,studentsandteachershavethesamefundamentaltoolstoensureDelawarestudentsarereadyfortheworkforceandtobefullyfunctioningcitizensofthestateandthenation.

Sincethe2003‐2005DCETStrategicPlan,therehavebeensignificantchangesintechnologyinDelaware’sschools.Thestatebegananannualschooltechnologysurveyinthefall2000.Inthe2000survey,therewere30,545instructionalcomputersand1,763administrativecomputers.Inreviewingthesurveysbetween2007andthecurrentsurvey,anumberoffactsstandout.

Types of Computing Devices Surveyed Thesurveyhasshiftedwhatithasaskedforbaseduponchangesinthetechnologyusedinschools.The2007and2008surveysfirstaskedformultimediacomputersinadditiontoMacs,Maclaptops,PCsandPClaptops,indicatingrecognitionoftheshiftinpoweranduseofthedevices.Asthestategearedupforonlineassessments,thefocusinthe2009and2010surveyswasoncomputersthatmettheDelawareComprehensiveAssessmentSystem’srecommendedspecifications.In2011,thesurveybegancollecting“OtherInternetAccessDevices,”includingAndroidtablet,iPad,Windowstablet,Mobiledevice,Portablemediaplayer,eBookandOther,reflectingthenewtechnologiesbeingintroducedtothemarket.Finally,the2015surveyincludedChromebooksinresponsetotheincreaseintheOthercategoryaswellastheskyrocketinggrowthofmarketsharesalesofChromebooks.

27


Number of Computing Devices The2015‐2016AnnualDelawareSchoolTechnologySurvey(AppendixD)showsapproximately110,700devicesforinstructioninDelawareschoolsmatchingthedefinitionoffullyfunctioningdevices,aswellas,over8,300administrativecomputersandtablets.Approximately34,500ofthesedevicesareincomputerlabsorlibrarymediacenters.Withapproximately135,000Delawarestudents,thestateisnotnearonestudentperdeviceandwith34,500ofthedevicesincomputerlabsorLibrary/MediaCenters,andothersoncarts,itisreasonabletoassumeonlyasmallpercentageofthemaregoinghomewithstudents.Thescenariootherbusinessesoperatewith‐eachemployeeshasatleastonewell‐supportedcomputingdeviceconnectedtotheInternet‐isfarfromrealityforDelawarestudents.

Chart1.TrendsinComputingDevicesforInstruction.

Theexplosivegrowthoftabletsoverthepasttwoyearscoupledwiththeincreaseinlaptopstowheretheyhavesurpassedthenumberofdesktops,showsastronginterestinmobiledevicesallowinguseofthedevicesanywhereoncampus.Thisflexibility,however,iscompletelydependentuponarobustwirelessnetworkevenlydistributedthroughoutthecampus.

AsforstudentshavingaccesstoadeviceandtheInternetathome,therearenodatatotellspecificallywhetherornotthatisthecase.In2014,astudybyBroadbandNow.comandothersestimatedthat16%ofDelawareresidentsqualifiedasunderservedforbroadbandservicesbecauseeitherbroadbandservicewasnotavailableorthecostofbroadbandwasconsideredaboveareasonablemarketprice.Thishomeworkgapdisproportionatelyimpactsrural,westernKentandSussexCountieswithsomeestimatessuggestingthatashighas40%offamilieslivingintheseareasmaynotcurrentlyhaveapathtosecurebroadbandservice.

Thehomeworkgapisasubstantialbarriertotheequitableaccesstolearningthatallstudentsshouldhave.Thegapalsocannegativelyaffectteachers’willingnesstomake

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

TrendsinComputingDevices

Desktops Laptops Tablets TotalDevices

28


homeworkassignmentsthatmaybemoreengagingandmorechallengingbecausetheyinvolveaccessingresourcesontheInternet.

TheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformationandtheDepartmentofEducationareexaminingotheropportunitiesforpartnershipinservingDelaware’sstudentssuchasprovidinglow‐costhigh‐speedInternetservicetofamilieslessabletoafforditthroughserviceproviderprogramsandworkingtoprovidehigh‐volumepurchasingopportunitiestoschooldistricts.Inaddition,theFederalCommunicationsCommission(FCC)isexpectedtooverhaultheLifelineprograminearly2016,tohelpmakebroadbandInternetaffordableforlow‐incomefamilies.TheFCCmoveseekstoensureallstudentshaveaccesstotheInternet,helpingtobridgethedigitaldivide.

Other Technologies Alsotellinginareviewofpastsurveysisthetypesofdevices,otherthancomputingdevicesthatareusedintheclassroom.In2007,thesurveycollecteddataonothertechnologiesthatwereusedintheclassroom,includingthenumberofdigitalcameras,PersonalDigitalAssistants(PDAs),printersandcomputerprojectiondevicesaswellasservers.Overtimetheinventoryofsometechnologies,suchasprinters,hasremainedrelativelyconstantwithaboutoneprinterperclassroom.Asthecostofprojectiondevices(documentcamerasandprojectorsconnectedtoacomputer)fell,thenumberinclassroomshasgrownbymorethanathousandayeartowherethereistheequivalentofoneprojectiondeviceperclassroom.Thesameistrueofinteractivewhiteboards,someofwhichhavebuiltinprojectionsystems.AsLEAshavepurchasedmoreandmorelaptopsandtabletsthatareeasilyportable,therehasbeenconcomitantgrowthinwirelessaccesspoints.Otherclassroomtechnologiessuchasresponsesystems,orclickers,thatallowimmediatepersonalizedresponsesfromstudentstoquestionsfromteachers,seemtohaveleveledoff,ascomputingdevicescanbeusedforasimilarfunction.

Another–andmoreimportant–perspectiveondevicesintheclassroomcanbegleanedfromtheteacher’sperspectivesasshownontheTeachersurvey.Themajorityofteachersareinclassroomsthatarenotreallyreadyforfulltechnologyintegration,definedas“atleastonecomputerforeverythreestudentsandaSMARTBoardorothercomputer‐relatedlearningdevice.”

Itisnotthatteachersdon’twanttechnology.Whengivenfourstatementsandaskedtopicktheonethatbestappliestotheircurrentthinking,itisclearthatteacherswantmoretechnology.

Table3.PercentofTeachersRespondingtoStatementthatBestAppliestoCurrentThinking

CurrentThinking PercentIwishwehadmoretechnologyinmyclassroom/ourclassrooms 69.41%Iwishwehadlesstechnologyinmyclassroom/ourclassrooms 1.22%Mystudents/ourstudentswantmoretechnologyintheclassroombutIdonot 2.06%Theleveloftechnologythatwehavenowisjustfine 27.31%

Andteachershaveasked:54percentofteachershaveaskedformoretechnologyresourcesfortheirclassrooms.Whenaskediftheycouldreceiveanytechnologyfortheirclassroom,

29


overathirdwishedforiPadsortabletsforeachchildandoverathirdwishedforacomputerorlaptopforeachchild.Interactivewhiteboards,interactivetablesandprojectorswerefardownthelist.Nearlythreequartersofrespondentssaidtheyfeltrestrictedwithtryingtoutilizetechnologybecauseoflackofresources.Byfartheprimaryreasonwasalimitednumberofdevices.Thenexttworeasonswerethattheirhardwarewasnotfunctioningandlackofbandwidth.Teacherswereaskedtheopen‐endedquestion,“Ineed…”Thesecondhighestresponseonthe“Ineed”listwas“moreaccesstotechnologytoolstointegrateinmyclassroominstruction.”Clearlyteacherswantandneedmoredevices,andtheyneedtobecomfortablethatthedevicesworkedintheclassroomandthattheycangettotheInternettousetheresourcestheyneed.

Changing Approaches to Instruction Enabled by Technology Delawarehasengagedinactionresearchoneffectivewaystointegratetechnologyintoinstructionandcreatinganddisseminatingbestpracticesforchangingapproachestoinstructionenabledbytechnology.Forthe2013‐2014schoolyear,theBRINC(Brandywine,IndianRiver,NewCastleCountyVo‐TechandColonial)Consortiumreceiveda$600,000SIIP(SpecificandInnovativeImprovementPractices)grantfromtheDelawareDepartmentofEducationforLinkingtotheFuturethatsupportedpersonalizedlearningopportunitiesforstudentsatall10highschoolsinthosedistricts.BRINCenvisionsthatstudentswillbeabletocomparedataabouttheirprogressagainsttheirlearninggoals,beexposedtonewblendedlearningstrategiesforanywhere,anytimelearningandhavemoreoptionsfornon‐traditionallearning,suchasonlinecourses.[20]

ThedistrictsinBRINCshareadeepcommitmenttoacceleratingstudentachievement,deepeningstudentlearning,andincreasingstudentequitythroughacoordinatedapproach.TheConsortium’sgoalistoensurethateverystudentineveryBRINCdistrictgraduatescollege‐andcareer‐readybycreatingandsupportingnewpersonalizedlearningenvironments.BRINC’sambitiousplantoprovidepersonalizedlearningopportunitiesforeachstudentisdrivenbyasharedvisionforafuturewhereteachingandlearningareresponsivetostudentneedsandsupportedbyappropriateresources.

InNovember2015,theBRINCConsortiumwasfeaturedontheU.S.DepartmentofEducationblogthathighlightsinnovativeideas,promisingpractices,lessonslearnedandresourcesinformedbytheimplementationofK‐12reformstoimproveeducationforallstudents.Theblogpost,Delaware’sBRINCDistrictsCollaboratetoPersonalizeLearningforAllStudents,celebratestheworkoftheBRINCdistrictsandespeciallytheireffortsatcollaboration.[21]

ThevastmajorityofteachersrespondingtotheTeachersurveyareexperienceduserswith94%ratingthemselvesintermediateorexperiencedcomputerusersandtheyusecomputers,outsideofinstruction,firstandforemosttoaccesstheInternetandwordprocessingthentocreateinstructionalmaterialsandcommunicatewithparents.Toenhancetheirteachingefforts,theyrelymostononlinevideocontentandonlineimages,aswellastheInternetfordevelopinglessonplansandmanagementprogramsforstudentdata.

Delawareteachersseemtohaveverypositiveattitudesaboutthebenefitsoftechnologyintheclassroom.Theprimarybenefitoftechnologythatteachershaveseenintheirclassroomismotivationwith‘beingabletoreinforceandexpandoncontenttaught’withthe‘abilitytorespondtoavarietyoflearningstyles’closebehind.WhengivenchoicesaboutwhathappenswhentheyusetheInternet,teachersselected“Studentsaremoremotivated”most

30


often,followedby“Studentscreateproductsthatshowhigherlevelsoflearning.”Whengivenalistofstatementsthatwerebothpositiveandnegativeabouttechnology,thetwomostselectedstatementswere“Thetechnologytodayallowsteacherstodomuchmorethaneverbefore,”and“Technologyisanewandexcitingwayofcommunicatingwithandmotivatingstudents.”Thetwoleastselectedoptionswerenegative:“Technologyismoreofadistractionthanateachingasset,”and“Technologyrequirestoomuchplanning/maintenance.”

Intheclassroomwithstudents,approximatelytwo‐thirdsofteacherssurveyedsaidtheyintegratetechnologyintotheirlessonsmultipletimesaweek.However,thevastnumberofusestendstofocusonwaysthatkeeptheteacherasthefocusofthelearningasopposedtoempoweringthestudents.Thisisillustratedbytheresponsestothequestion,“Pleaserateeachofthefollowingtechnologiesbasedonyourunderstandingofeachtoenhancelearning.”Interactivewhiteboardsandpersonalcomputersorlaptopswerevirtuallytiedforthetopspotfollowedbyprojectorstodisplayorshowmediafromwebsitesorabrowser.Bothprojectorsandinteractivewhiteboardsareprimarilyusedwiththeteacherincharge.Whenaskedhowoftentheyusethesetechnologies,forthosetechnologiesusedeveryday,theinteractivewhiteboardwasthemostused,followedbyprojectorsandthenpersonalcomputersandlaptops.Twoofthethreetechnologiesthattheso‐called‘power‐users’areusingaretypicallycontrolledbyteachers,notstudents.

OveralltheprofileofDelawareteachersisthatthemajorityisexperiencedwithtechnologyfortheirownuse,haveapositiveattitudeaboutthebenefitsoftechnologyforstudents,andareusingtechnologyoutsideoftheclassroomtohelpthemintheirjobsandintheclassroomwithstudents,albeitprimarilyinawaytopresentinformationtostudents.

Asnotedinthenationalsection,shiftingtheemphasisofinstructionalmaterialsfromprinttowarddigitalsubstantiallyenhanceseffortstointegratetechnologythroughoutinstruction.TheshifttodigitalinstructionalmaterialsinDelawarecurrentlyisfocusedonrepositories.TheDDOEintendstousetheSchoologyLearningManagementSystem(LMS)toprovideastatewiderepositoryofinstructionalresources.ThestatecontractedwithSchoologyin2015todeliverprofessionaldevelopmentthroughtheeLearningDelawareprogram.Inaddition,districtsandchartershavetheopportunitytousetheSchoologyLMSwiththeirK‐12studentsatminimalcost.WithinSchoology,theResourcessectionwillbeusedtoshareinstructionalcontent.TheDDOEandLEAsareworkingwithSchoologytoenhancetheResourcessectiontoprovidebettertaggingandsearchingcapabilities.Currently,CommonCoreresourcesarebeingdevelopedandsharedwiththeCommonGroundforCommonCoregroupinSchoologywiththeintentofexpandingtheaudienceinthenearfuture.

InDecember2015,DelawarejoinedTheK‐12OERCollaborative,aninitiativeledbyagroupof11stateswiththegoalofcreatingcomprehensive,high‐qualityopeneducationalresources(OER)supportingK‐12mathematicsandEnglishlanguageartsthatarealignedwithstatelearningstandards.ThestatesthathavesignedontothecollaborativeareDelaware,California,Georgia,Hawaii,Idaho,Minnesota,NorthCarolina,Oregon,Utah,WashingtonandWisconsin.Anumberoforganizationshave“signedon”tothecollaborativeaswell.TheK‐12OERCollaborativehasgonethroughanRFPprocessforprototypelessonsfrompublishersandhasstartedworkonmaterialsformiddleschoolmath,withIllustrativeMathematicsasthedeveloper.TheCollaborativehassecuredsufficientfundingtodevelopOERmaterialsforgrades6‐8mathand6‐8English/languageartsbythe2017‐18school

31


year.Delawareishopingtoparticipateina6thgrademathpilotduringthe2016‐2017schoolyear.[22]

Opportunities in Teacher Preparation and Professional Learning Teacherpreparationprogramshaveresponsibilitytoprepareteachersinawiderangeofareasinashortperiodoftime.Astechnologicalchangehasflowedthroughsocietyand,asnoted,lessrapidlythroughPre‐K–12education,teachingaboutthepurposefulintegrationoftechnologythroughoutteachingandlearninghasbeenslowtopermeateteacherpreparationprograms.Inaddition,asTable4showsbelow,manyDelawareteachershavebeenintheclassroomforanumberofyears.

Table4.YearsintheTeachingProfession

YearsTeaching PercentofTeachers1–5 19.69%6–10 20,50%11–15 21.24%16–20 16.45%21ormore 22.64%

GiventhedemographicdescribedinTable4,itisnotsurprisingthenegativeresponsetothequestion,“Towhatextenthaseachofthefollowingpreparedyoutomakeeffectiveuseofeducationaltechnologyforinstruction?”Manyteacherswereinteacherpreparationprogramswhenintegrationoftechnologywasinitsinfantstage.

Table5.PreparationforEffectiveUseofTechnologyforInstruction

PreparationArea NotApplicable

NotatAll

MinorExtent

ModerateExtent

MajorExtent

Undergraduateteachereducationprogram

31.75% 27.89% 24.68% 11.17% 4.50%

Graduateteachereducationprogram

32.80% 16.00% 22.99% 16.80% 11.41%

Professionaldevelopmentactivities

5.91% 8.23% 37.30% 34.59% 14.06%

Trainingprovidedbystaffresponsiblefortechnologysupportand/orintegrationatyourschool

8.51% 12.20% 36.44% 30.58% 12.28%

Independentlearning 2.40% 2.16% 18.45% 33.63% 43.37%

In2014,Delawarestrengthenedteacherpreparationbyraisingthestandardsforentryintotheteachingprofession.Morespecifically,allDelawareteacherpreparationprogramshavetosethighadmissionandcompletionrequirements,toprovidehigh‐qualitystudentteachingexperiencesandongoingevaluationofprogramparticipants,andtoprepareprospectiveelementaryschoolteachersinage‐appropriateliteracyandmathematics

32


instruction.WiththerecentadoptionoftheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)[23]forallDelawareeducatorsthatincludestheISTEStandardsforTeachers,[24]thereispolicyinplacetoensureteachersexitingteacherpreparationprogramsinDelawarewillbemorereadytointegratetechnologyintoteachingandlearning.

Yetwithquicklychangingtechnology,newinstructionalapproachesduetomorerigorousstandards,andinspiteofoftenintegratingthetechnologyintheclassroom,manyteachersrespondingtothesurveyadministeredinlatefall2015feelill‐preparedtouseiteffectivelyandarecravingprofessionallearningtohelpthem.However,theprofessionallearningneedstobedeliveredinwaysthatareeffectiveandconvenientforthem.Theteachersurveyaskedrespondents,“Estimatehowmanyhoursoftechnologyprofessionaldevelopmentyouhavereceivedwithinthepasttwoyears?”Theanswersarestunninglylow.

Table6.TechnologyProfessionalDevelopmentinLastTwoYearsPDHours Percent0‐4hours 46.67%5‐10hours 29.01%11‐20hours 10.40%Morethan20hours 13.92%

Thetrainingtheyhavereceivedhasbeenthemostbasic.Whilethemostfrequentresponsetowhatkindofprofessionallearningtheyhadreceivedwas“integrationoftechnology”andsecondwas“softwareapplications,”thethirdmostfrequentresponsefromnearlyhalfoftherespondentswas“Basiccomputeruse.”Inlastplacewas“Blended‘Personalized’Learning,”themostsophisticateduseoftechnology,butonlyone‐fifthofteachersselectedthatresponse.

Whenaskedtochoosethetwobestwaystheylearnhowtousetechnology,nearlythree‐fourthsofteachersselected“Smallgroup/one‐on‐oneprofessionaldevelopmentactivities.”Thenexttwomostpopularoptionschosenwere“Colleagues”and“Independently.”Onequarterofteachersstronglydisagreedordisagreedwiththestatementthatthetechnologyprofessionaldevelopmenttheyhadreceivedinthelast12monthsmettheirgoalsandneeds.Inthepreviouslycited“Ineed”question,“Moreoptionsforprofessionaldevelopmentintheareasoftechnology”receivedthehighestaverageresponse.Anditisnowonder.Whenasked,“Towhatextenthaseachofthefollowingpreparedyoutomakeeffectiveuseofeducationaltechnologyforinstruction,”thelowestrankeditemwas“Undergraduateteachereducationprogram”andthehighestbyfarwas“Independentlearning.”

Asnotedinthenationalsection,thetwomosteffectivewaystodeliverthetypeofprofessionallearningthatmatchestheresearch‐basedcharacteristicsofhigh‐qualityprofessionallearningaredigitalliteracycoachesandonlineprofessionallearning.

WhilesomeLEAsinDelawarehavehadsomeexperiencewithdigitalliteracycoaches,therehastodatenotbeenamajoremphasisonthismodel.However,thestatehassubstantialexperiencewithonlineprofessionallearning.eLearningDelaware(eLDE)offersavarietyofeducatorchoiceandmandatorytrainingsdeliveredviatheSchoologyLearning

33


ManagementSystem.TheeLDEfacilitator‐lededucatorchoicecoursesareofferedduringfour,seven‐weeksessions(fall,winter,spring,andsummer)with4‐6weeksofcontent.Thecoursesareentirelyonlinebutduringeachweek,therearespecificactivitiesandadiscussion.Uponsuccessfulcompletionofacourse,participantsreceiveacertificateforclockhoursearnedthatcanbeappliedtowardthe90‐hourre‐licensurerequirement.Duringthe2015‐2016schoolyear,eLDEexpandedbeyondtraditionalonlinecoursestoincludeself‐paced,ondemandmodulesrelatedtoCommonCore.

TheeLearningDelawareplatformisalsousedtodeliveravarietyofmandatorytraining,suchasChildAbuseandSchoolBullyingtotheDelawareeducationalcommunity.Mandatorytrainingisself‐pacedandsuccessfulcompletionofaquizorassuranceisrequiredforawardingofcredit.

InadditiontotheeLearningDelawarestatelevelprofessionaldevelopmentsystem,theSchoologyLMSisbeingusedduringthe2015‐2016schoolyearby24LEAscovering121schoolswithalmost80,000studentstodeliveronlinecontenttoK‐12students.TheSchoologyLMSallowseducatorstodeliverblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstruction.Thenumberofparticipatingschoolandstudentsisexpectedtogrowfor2016‐2017.

Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Teaching and Learning

Goal 3 – Computing Devices Bythe2019‐2020schoolyear,allstudentswillhaveaccesstoacomputingdeviceatschoolandathome,toenhancelearningandprovidethemwithtechnologyskillsandsavvy.

Strategies 1. Negotiateastatecontractwithvolumepurchasingpowerformultipletypesofdevices

thatdistrictscanaccess.Thecontractshouldincludeoptionsforprofessionallearning,technologysupport,andprovisionsforfullaccessibilityforthebenefitofallstudentsandeducatorswithdisabilities.

Rationale: Thestatecouldusevolumepurchasingtoprovideleverageforlowerpricesandmakethosepricesavailabletoschooldistricts.Becausealldistrictsneedprofessionallearningandtechnologysupport,buildingthoseoptionsintoastatecontractalsomayprovidecapabilitiesthatdistrictsmaynotbeabletogetontheirown,andmostprobablynotatthepricethestatecouldnegotiate.

Recommendation3.1.1: FormanRFPcommitteeconsistingofrepresentativesfromDTI,DDOEandtheLEAstodeterminethecriteriaforanRFPandissueanRFPthatwillbeawardedbyspring2017.

Goal 4 – Teacher Preparation By2020,allstudentsgraduatingteacherpreparationprogramsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinusingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheISTEStandardsforTeachers.

34


Strategies 1. Ensureteacherpreparationprogramspreparestudentsenteringtheteaching

professionwiththenecessaryskillstoeffectivelyintegratetechnologyintostudents’learningexperiencesandofferadvanceddegrees/certificatesforpracticingteachers.

Rationale: In2014,thestatestrengthenedteacherpreparationbyraisingthestandardsforentryintotheteachingprofession.Morespecifically,allDelawareteacherpreparationprogramshavetosethighadmissionandcompletionrequirements,toprovidehigh‐qualitystudentteachingexperiencesandongoingevaluationofprogramparticipants,andtoprepareprospectiveelementaryschoolteachersinage‐appropriateliteracyandmathematicsinstruction.WiththerecentadoptionoftheISTEStandardsforTeachersandtheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)forallDelawareeducators,thereisaneedtoprovideinstructionalandtechnologysupportforthosenewteachersenteringthefield.Evidenceofthislackofpreparednessonintegratingtechnologyintolearningcomesfromtheteachersurvey.Onesurveyquestionasked,“Towhatextenthaseachofthefollowingpreparedyoutomakeeffectiveuseofeducationaltechnologyforinstruction?”Undergraduateteachereducationprogramhadthelowestoverallscoreamongthefouroptionswith29%sayingitpreparedthem“Notatall.”Only4.5percentsaiditpreparedthemtoa“majorextent.”Thesecondlowestscorewasfor“Graduateteachereducation.”WithoverhalfoftheteachersrespondinghavinggraduatedfromaninstitutionfromwithinDelaware,increasingthefocusonteachingwithtechnologycouldhaveasignificantpositiveimpactonfutureteachersinDelaware.

Recommendation4.1.1: TheDelawareProfessionalStandardsBoardintandemwiththeStateBoardofEducationshouldconsideradoptingeitheracreditminimumorcompetencybasedrequirementaroundtheintegrationoftechnologyintolearningforteachercandidatesseekinganinitiallicense.

Recommendation4.1.2: TeacherPreparationprogramsshouldbeencouragedtoofferadvanceddegreesorcertificatesonteachingandlearningwithtechnologyandblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstructionforpracticingeducators.

Goal 5 – Professional Learning PracticingeducatorsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinintegratingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)andtheISTEStandardsforTeachersandconsistentwithPSBRegulations1598and1599andfollowing.

Strategies 1. AdoptandimplementtheInternationalSocietyforTechnologyinEducation(ISTE)

standardsforstudentsandcoaches.

Rationale: In2014,theDelawareProfessionalStandardsBoardandtheStateBoardofEducationadoptedtheISTEStandardsforTeachersandtheISTEStandardsforAdministrators.Tostrengthentheintegrationoftechnology

35


intoteachingandlearning,theISTEstandardsshouldextendtostudentsandcoaches.

Recommendation5.1.1: TheDelawareProfessionalStandardsBoardandtheStateBoardofEducationshouldexpandRegulation1599beyondstandardsforteachersandadministratorsbyadoptingtheISTEStandardsforStudentsandISTEStandardsforCoaches.

2. EstablishanLEADigitalLearningCoachpositiontosupporteducatorsineffectivelyimplementingdigitallearningtofulfilltheISTEstandards.

Rationale: TheTeachersurveyhasnumerousquestionsrelatedtoteachers’needsforprofessionallearning.Forexample,66%ofteacherssaidtheyintegratetechnologyintostudentlearning“multipletimesperweek,”13%saidtheyintegratetechnology“onceaweek,”andtheremaining21%integratedtechnologyafewtimesamonthorless.Whenaskedhowmanyhoursoftechnologyprofessionaldevelopmenttheyhadreceivedwithinthepasttwoyears,nearlyhalf(47%)said0‐4hoursand29%said5‐10hours.Whengivenachoiceoftenpossibleresponsestotheprompt,“Ineed…”thetopresponsewas“Moreoptionsforprofessionaldevelopmentintheareasoftechnology.”Finally,whenasked,“Whataretwowaysyoulearnbestonhowtousetechnology,”theresponse‘Smallgroup/one‐on‐oneProfessionalDevelopmentActivities’wasbyfarthetopchoicewith73.15percent,followedby‘Colleagues’with47.60percent.BoththeseapproachesarefullycompatiblewithcoachingasafavoredapproachtoprofessionallearningandtheneedtoeffectivelyimplementtheISTEstandards..

Recommendation5.2.1: EnsureLEAshavesufficientresourcestosupportaminimumofonedigitallearningcoachperLEAandforlargerLEAs,sufficientdigitallearningcoachestoaddresstheneedsandvisionoftheLEA.

3. Provideonlinepersonalizedprofessionallearning,research,andcollaborationopportunitiesforeducatorsthataretiedtopracticeandalignedtoISTEstandardsthroughanonlinevirtualnetwork.

Rationale: Investmentintechnologyismorethandevicesandbandwidth;italsoisprofessionallearningandchangemanagement.Puttogetheritisasubstantialinvestmentofmoneyandtimeandpossiblyopportunitycost.Havingtheflexibilitytoworkindependentlyonlinefitsmanyteachers’preferencesforhowtheyworkinpreparingforclassaswellasintheirpersonaluseofacomputer.ResearchfromTexasGateway,anonlineprofessionallearningcommunityestablishedandmaintainedbytheTexasEducationAgency(StateDepartmentofEducation),hasshownthathavingsmall“chunks”ofprofessionallearning,aswellaslargermodulesandcourses,increasedthenumberofvisitstoTexasGatewaybythree‐fold.[25]Inaddition,highlightingevidence‐basedpracticesinallaspectsoftechnologyintegrationforDelawareteacherswouldenhancecollaborationamongeducatorsaroundthestateultimatelybenefitingstudentlearning.

36


However,researchinavacuumisoflittleornovalue.Fulldisseminationviaexistingorganizations,suchastheTeachingandLearningCadre,DigitalLearningCadre,InstructionalTechnologyUsersGroup–Delaware,TechMACC(TechnologyManagersandComputerCoordinators),andSchoologyChampionsCadre,notonlywillspreadthewordofsuccessfulpractices,italsowillstrengthenandaddvaluetoexistingorganizations.TheBRINCconsortiumalreadyismodelingtheuseoftechnology,andwouldserveasaninitialmodeloftheeffort.

Recommendation5.3.1: Provideonlinepersonalizedprofessionallearning,research,andcollaborationopportunitiesforeducatorsthataretiedtopracticeandalignedtoISTEstandardsthroughanonlinevirtualnetwork.

4. Establishandmaintaina“LeadingintheDigitalAge”on‐going,sustained,professionallearningprogramforteacherleaders,principals,superintendents,andothereducationleaders.

Rationale: Professionallearningforalleducatorsisnolongeraluxurybutratheranecessitytoensurethateducatorscontinuetostrengthentheirpracticethroughouttheircareer.Astheinstructionalleaderoftheschool,theprincipalneedstobeawareofpoliciesandpracticesthatenableeffectiveinstruction,andinthe21stcentury,technologyplaysakeyroleineffectiveinstruction.Therefore,principalsandotherleadersthroughouttheLEA,needtobeawareofthelatesttechnologiesavailableforinstructionandwaystheycanbeusedeffectivelyandefficientlybyteachersandstudents,andleadersneedtoknowhowtohelpteachersusethesetools.Leadershiphastheresponsibilitytoensurethateducatorswithintheirschoolsengageincontinuousprofessionallearningandapplythatlearningtoincreasestudentachievement.Byadvocatingforprofessionallearningthatmeetstheneedsoftheteacherswheretheyare,Delawarecandoitspartinensuringasuccessfuleducationexperienceforeverychildinthestate.

Recommendation5.4.1: Establishandmaintaina“LeadingintheDigitalAge”on‐going,sustained,professionallearningprogramforteacherleaders,principals,superintendents,andothereducationleaders.

Goal 6 – Blended Learning to Personalize Instruction Studentsandeducatorswillhaveaccesstoastatewideonlinevirtualnetworkthatwillincludedigitalresourcesanddataanalysiscapabilitiestodeliverblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstructionforstudents.

Strategies 1. ProvideLEAswiththeopportunitytopurchaselicensesatalowcostforastatewide

learningmanagementsystemforusewithK‐12studentsthatisintegratedwiththestatewidepupilaccountingsystem.

Rationale: TheSchoologyLearningManagementSystemisbeingusedinthe2015‐2016schoolyearby24LEAsin121schoolswithapproximately80,000studentstodeliverblendedlearningopportunitiestoK‐12students.These

37


numbersareexpectedtoincreaseduringthenexttwoschoolyearsto110,000students.TheDDOEandLEAshaveacostsharefortheSchoologyaccountswherethestatepays$1.83perstudentaccountandtheLEAspay$1.50.Withthepurchaseofstudentaccounts,alleducatoraccountsareatnoadditionalcost.TheFY17budgetrequestof$48,000($48.0)is$30,000($30.0)tocovertheincreaseinactualcostsincurredinFY16for80,000studentaccountsand$18,000($18.0)fortheexpectedincreaseto110,000studentsoverthenexttwoyears.TheGovernor’sRecommendedBudgetincludesthe$30,000($30.0)formaintainingthecurrentuse,butnotthe$18,000($18.0)formorestudents.Inaddition,wehaveaone‐timeopportunityinJune2016todecreasetheperstudentcostfrom$3.33to$3.00ifwereach100,000students.Withoutthefundingfortheincreaseinstudentparticipation,wewillneedtomaintainthe80,000studentaccountsandlosetheopportunitytoreduceourperstudentcost.

Recommendation6.1.1: Maintainastatewidecontractforalearningmanagementsystemandensureaperstudentcost‐sharebetweentheDepartmentofEducationandtheLEAs.

2. Establisharepositoryaspartofthestatewideonlinevirtualnetworkwithprocessestodevelop,manageandassessinstructionalresources,includingOpenEducationalResourcesandexpandcurrentinitiativestoincludecurriculumsubscriptions.

Rationale: Inordertopersonalizelearningforstudents,teachersneedaccesstoavarietyofinstructionalresources.The“onesizefitsall”approachofthepastfocusedonthesametextbookasthesinglesourceofcontentforallstudentsinaclassisinappropriateatatimewhenweareabletoknowmoreabouthowtoday’sdigitalnativeslearnbest.Havingtheinstructionalresourceslinkedtostatestandardsandbeingabletotrackhowthoseresourcesareusedcanprovidediagnosticfeedbackforteacherswhichwouldundoubtedlyimpactstudentachievement.

NewmodelsfortheacquisitionanduseofinstructionalmaterialssuchasOpenEducationalResourcesandstatewidesubscriptionstoonlineservicesforcontentalsocansaveLEAsmoneythatcanbeusedforprofessionallearning,devices,bandwidth,ortechnologysupport.

Recommendation6.2.1: Provideresourcesandpersonnelsufficienttobuildandsupportastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources.

3. Provideresourcesandprofessionallearningsothatbythe2019‐2020schoolyear,themajorityofresourcesusedinDelawaregrades3–12classroomsaredigitalandareaccessibleforallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilitieswhomayuseassistivetechnologiestoaccesstheirlearningmaterials.

Rationale: Asthestatemovescloserandclosertothegoalofeverystudenthavingadeviceforlearningtouseinschoolandoutofschool,itbecomesmoreimportantforstudentstohaveeasyaccesstoavarietyofinstructionalresourcesforlearningasthesematerialsshiftfromprinttowarddigital.Inaddition,studentswillbeusingvariousdigitalresourcestocreatecontentinsolvingrealworldproblemsdemonstratinghigherorderthinkingskills.Forsometeachers,usingprimarilydigitalresourceswillrequireprofessionallearningoneverythingfrommanagingtheresourcesamong

38


studentstocopyrightlawstonewinstructionalapproachesthatprovideaccesstolearningforallstudents.Inresponsetothepromptfromtheteachersurvey,“Ithink…”thehighestaverageresponsewas“TechnologyhaschangedthewayIteach,”butthethirdhighestresponsewas“Schoolsystemsexpectustolearnnewtechnologieswithoutformaltraining.”Bynotaddressingthisneed,theoutcomewillresultintheuneven,ineffectiveandinefficientintegrationoftechnologyinteachingandlearningultimatelyimpactingstudentachievement.

Recommendation6.3.1: ConductadetailedanalysisofDelawarecode,regulations,andpoliciestoensuretherearenobarrierstopurchasingdigitalresourceswithexistingfundingstreamsfortextbooksandinstructionalmaterials.

Recommendation6.3.2: Providesufficientresourcesandprofessionallearningsothatbythe2019‐2020schoolyear,themajorityofresourcesprocuredandusedinDelawaregrades3–12classroomsaredigitalandfullyaccessible.

Assistive Technology

National Perspective

Use of Technology for Students with Disabilities AccordingtotheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct(IDEA)section602,assistivetechnologyis“anyitem,pieceofequipment,orproductsystem,whetheracquiredcommerciallyofftheshelf,modified,orcustomized,thatisusedtoincrease,maintain,orimprovefunctionalcapabilitiesofachildwithadisability.”Sec300.6statesthatassistivetechnologyservicesare“anyservicethatdirectlyassistsachildwithadisabilityintheselection,acquisition,oruseofanassistivetechnologydevice.”Thisincludesevaluatingachild’sneeds,acquiringadevice,andprovidingongoingpersonalizationofthedeviceforthechild’sneeds,coordinatinguseofthedeviceacrossthechild’sschoolday,andtrainingprofessionalsandfamilymemberstousethedevice.[26]

Simplyspeaking,assistivetechnology(AT)isanythingthatenablesanindividualwithadisabilitytoaccomplishsomethingthatwouldbeimpossible—ormoreeffortful,lessefficientoroflowerquality—withoutthesupportfromthetechnology.Inthecaseofchildrenandyouthwithdisabilities,mainstreamtechnologyqualifiesasATifitmeetstheabovedefinition.Forthisreason,itisinappropriatetoconsiderATascompletelydistinctfromothereducationaltechnology.Manymainstreamdevices,suchaslaptops,tabletsandChromebooks,havebuilt‐inaccessibilityfeaturesthataffordinvaluablesupportsforstudentswithsensory,physicalandlearningchallenges;additionalsoftwareandappsextendtheusefulnessofthesedevicesforchildrenandyouthwithdisabilities.Atthesametime,thereare“dedicated”ATdevicesandtechnology‐enabledstrategiesthathavebeendevelopedspecificallyforindividualswithdisabilities.Interestingly,sometechnologiesthatwereoriginallydevelopedassupportsforpeoplewithdisabilitieshavebeenembracedbysocietyasawhole.Forexample,thewordpredictionthatenablesustocomposetextmessagesmoreefficientlywasoriginallydevelopedtoenhancethegenerationofmessages

39


inaugmentativecommunicationdevices,andthecaptioningthatletsuswatchTVinnoisyenvironmentsbeganasanaccommodationforindividualswithhearingloss.

UniversalDesignforLearning(UDL)representsanotherstrategyforengagingstudentswiththecurriculumandsupportingthemindemonstrationoftheircapabilities.Whenthecurriculumisuniversallydesigned,itcontainsamultitudeofdifferentaccesspointsforstudentswithdifferingstrengths,challengesandpreferences.Ratherthanassessmentorinstructionbeingdeliveredinoneway—towhichallstudentsmustaccommodate—itexpectsthatthecurriculumwillcontainbuilt‐inaffordances.Forexample,ratherthanrelyingonatextbooktobethesolepurveyorofinformation,auniversally‐designedlessonwouldoffermultiplewaystoaccessthesameinformation:intraditionalprint,indigitalformatsothattheprintcouldbetransformedinwaysthatimproveaccess(e.g.,madelarger,readaloud,convertedtoBraille),andinothermediasuchasanimateddemonstrationsorvideos.Assistivetechnologyoftenservesasthekeytoactivatingstudent’spreferredaccessto,andinteractionwith,auniversally‐designedcurriculum.

AlthoughtheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationImprovementAct(P.L.108‐446)nowgovernstheeducationofstudentswithdisabilitiesfrombirththroughthetimethattheyexitthepubliceducationsystem,itwasactuallythe1997reauthorizationthatdramaticallyimpactedaccesstoAT.The1997reauthorizationreferencedthedefinitionofATabove,anditalsorequiredconsiderationoftheATneedsofeverystudentreceivingspecialeducationservices.[27]Section504oftheRehabilitationActof1973,asamended,iscivilrightslegislationthatappliestoallstudentswithdisabilities,eventhosewhoarenoteligibleforspecialeducationservicesunderIDEA.Section504establishesstudents’entitlementtoATthatenablesthemtoaccessaneducationequaltothatprovidedtotheirpeerswithoutdisabilities.

ThereisabundantandincontrovertibleevidencethatassistivetechnologyaffordsaccesstothegeneraleducationcurriculumandenableschildrenandyouthtoparticipateandachievetoamuchgreaterextentthantheycouldwithoutATservicesandsupports.Assistivetechnologymitigatesthebarriersposedbystudents’physical,sensoryand/orcognitivelimitations,enablingstudentstodemonstratetheirgiftsandtalents.Asaconsequence,thedynamicsaroundexpectationschange,leadingstudents,theirfamiliesandthepeoplewhosupportthemtoenvisionafutureinwhichthestudentsarecollegeandcareerready,engageinlifelonglearning,andparticipateasactiveandcontributingmembersoftheircommunities.

Delaware Perspective

Students with Disabilities and Assistive Technology InDelaware,assistivetechnology(AT)consideration,accessanduseisquiteunevenacrossLEAs,andevenfromschooltoschoolandclassroomtoclassroom.OtherthanareiterationofthefederalrequirementsregardingATintheDelawareAdministrativeManualforSpecialEducationServices,theDelawareDepartmentofEducationhasissuednoadditionalguidancetoLEAsregardingATconsideration,accessanduse.Asevidencedindatacollectedatmanyjunctures,educationpersonnelfeelillequippedtomeettheirAT‐relatedobligationstostudentsbecauseofconfusionregardingrolesandresponsibilities,considerationandevaluationprocesses,andacquisitionmechanisms(includingfundingissues).

40


Inmanyinstances,therequirementtoconsiderATforallstudentsforwhomanIEPisdevelopedisignored.Thismaybeduetoreluctancetoincurcosts,toignoranceofthelegalmandateforconsideration,tolackofknowledgeaboutavailableATandwhatitbringstothelearningenterprise,ortolackofclarityaboutwhohasresponsibilityfortheevaluationofstudentneedsandthedeterminationofthedevicesandservicesthatwillbestmeetstudentneeds.

ThedeploymentofATexpertiseacrossLEAsisalsoquiteuneven.SomeLEAshavededicatedATSpecialistsonstaffthatsupportteamdecision‐makingandassisteducatorsinimplementingATeffectively.OtherLEAshavenoformalizedmechanisms—orthepersonnelwhosupporttheirimplementation—relativetoATaccess,despitetheclearmandatesforATaccessanduseinIDEA.

TremendousbarrierstoATaccessarisefromtheperceivedlackoffundingforAT.PersonnelareimplicitlyandexplicitlyurgedtoavoidconsiderationofATforfearofthefiscalimplications,andthereseemstobeverylimitedawarenessofhowtomaximizemultiplesourcesoffinancialsupportforATaccess.

Withfederalfunding,theDelawareAssistiveTechnologyInitiative(DATI)wasestablishedin1991toconnectpeoplewithdisabilitieswiththetoolstheyneedinordertolearn,work,playandparticipateincommunitylifesafelyandeffectively.TheTechnology‐RelatedAssistanceActof1988authorizedtheestablishmentofanATprogramineachstateandterritorytoincreasecitizens’awarenessofandaccesstoAT.TheActwasreauthorizedin1994,withashiftinemphasistoeliminationofsystemicbarrierstoATaccess.TheATActof1998continuedsupportforstateATprograms,butdramaticallyreducedtheamountoffundingavailable.ThemostrecentauthorizationoftheActrequiresstateATprogramstoprovidefourcoreservices—ATdemonstration,ATloan,ATreuse,andalternativefinancingofAT—inadditiontotraining,technicalassistanceandcoordinationfunctions.

TheDATIisaprogramoftheCenterforDisabilitiesStudiesattheUniversityofDelaware.DATIoperatesanAssistiveTechnologyResourceCenterineachcountyinwhichDelawareresidentscanaccessequipmentdemonstrations,borrowdevicesfortrialuseatnocost,orparticipateinanequipmentexchangeprogramconnectingpeoplewhohaveATtheynolongerneedwiththosewhocoulduseit.ThecentersarestaffedbyknowledgeableATSpecialistswhohelpindividualsexploreAToptionsthatmightmeettheirneeds.Amongtheircustomersarepeoplewithdisabilitiesandtheirfamilymembers,educators,healthcareprofessionals,casemanagers,andotherswithaninterestinfacilitatingATaccess.DATIstaffassistcustomersinfindingameanstoacquiretheATtheyneed,andoperatesseveralequipmentgiveawayprograms.

Overtheyears,theDATIhascollaboratedwithmanystateagenciesseekingtoenhanceATaccessandusefortheirconstituents.DATIhaspartneredwiththeDelawareDepartmentofEducation(DDOE)inincreasingtheawarenessofeducatorsrelativetoAT,UniversalDesignforLearning(UDL),andaccessibleinstructionalmaterials(AIM).TheCenterforDisabilitiesStudiescurrentlyoperatestheDelawareAIMCenter,acentralizedsourceofaccessiblematerialstoLEAsstatewide,undercontractfromtheDDOE,andalsomanagestheSPEACSproject,whichseekstoenhancethecommunicationskillsofstudentswiththemostcomplexcommunicationneeds.

ThroughauniquepartnershipbetweentheDelawareGeneralAssemblyandtheStateofDelaware’sSecretaryofEducation,theDDOEwasauthorizedtoperformacomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationserviceswithinthestate’spublicschools.In

41


addition,DDOEwasauthorizedtocreateapositiontoconductthisreviewandsubsequentlycreateastrategicplan.ThiswasformalizedintheDelawareFY2015Budget,Section307Epilogue:“Saidreviewshallinclude,butnotbelimitedto,theprovisionandfundingofassistivetechnologyintheclassroom;thecoordinationanddistributionofinformationonservicesavailableforchildrenwithdisabilitiesthatcrossmultiplestateagencies;andcreatingastrategicplanforspecialeducationservices.”

Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Assistive Technology

Goal 7 ‐ Assistive Technology: Students Ensureallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilities,willhaveaccesstotechnologythatwillhelpthemlearnandachieve.

1. Createandadoptuniformguidanceaddressingassistivetechnologyconsideration,accessandsupportforchildrenwithdisabilitiesagesbirththrough3.

Rationale: Federallawmandatesthatchildrenwithdisabilitiesuptoage3haveaccesstoassistivetechnologysupportsandservicesthatenabletheirparticipationanddevelopment.

Recommendation7.1.1: DevelopandpromulgateDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelinesthatspecifyexpectationsregardingtheprocessesbywhichassistivetechnologyisconsidered,assistivetechnologyneedsareevaluated,assistivetechnologyisacquiredandcustomized,andchildrenandfamiliesaresupportedinusingATtoenhanceaccesstoandparticipationinroutinesandactivities.

2. Createandadoptuniformguidanceaddressingassistivetechnologyconsideration,accessandsupportforpreschool,elementary,andsecondarystudentswithdisabilities,ages3through21.

Rationale: FederallawmandatesthatstudentswithdisabilitiesservedinthePreK‐12educationsystemhaveaccesstoassistivetechnologysupportsandservicesthatenablethemtoaccessthegeneraleducationcurriculumandsucceedaslearners.

Recommendation7.2.1: DevelopandpromulgateDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelinesthatspecifyexpectationsregardingtheprocessesbywhichassistivetechnologyisconsidered,assistivetechnologyneedsareevaluated,assistivetechnologyisacquiredandcustomized,andstudentsaresupportedinusingassistivetechnologytolearn,demonstratetheirabilities,andtransitionsuccessfullyintoadultlife.

Recommendation7.2.2: Developandpromulgateguidancethatspecifiesexpectationsregardingtheprocurementofaccessibleeducationaltechnologyandtheprocessesforensuringcompatibilityamonginfrastructure,hardware,andsoftwaresothatstudentswithdisabilitieshavecontemporaneousaccesstothesamelearningopportunitiesastheirpeerswithoutdisabilities.

42


3. EstablishacentralizedfundtoassistearlyinterventionprovidersandLEAsinacquiringtheassistivetechnologydeterminedbyteamstobenecessaryforchildrenwithdisabilitiestobenefitfromearlyinterventionoreducationalservices.

Rationale: Accesstoassistivetechnologyisarightassuredthroughfederallaw(IDEA),yetaccesstoassistivetechnologycanbecompromisedbyfiscalconstraints.Thereareexistingfundingmechanismssupportingassistivetechnologyaccessanduse,yetthesemechanismsarenotutilizedtotheirfullpotential,inpartbecauseneithereligibilityparametersnortheprocessesforaccessingthesemechanismsareclear.Enhancedaccesstoassistivetechnologycanbefacilitatedthroughclarificationofthevariousfundingmechanismsthatcanbeaccessedinsupportofassistivetechnologyacquisition.AssistivetechnologyaccessshouldnotbeconstrainedbythefiscalchallengeswithinLEAs;theestablishmentofacentralizedfundtoassistintheacquisitionofassistivetechnologywillcontributesignificantlytoassuringconsistentandequitableaccesstoassistivetechnologythroughoutthestate.

Recommendation7.3.1: Clarify,viatheDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelines,therangeofpossiblesourcessupportingATacquisitionandthemechanismsforaccessingthosesources,andestablishacentralizedfundtoassistintheacquisitionofassistivetechnology,includingguidelinesforutilizationofthefundthatreflectthenecessityofstudent‐specificassistivetechnologyselectionandanexpectationofsharedstate/localobligation.

Recommendation7.3.2: SupporttheFY18assistivetechnologybudgetrequestintheworkfromtheDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology,authorizedbySection307oftheFY2015budgetepilogue.

Goal 8 ‐ Assistive Technology: Educators Alleducatorswillhavesufficientknowledge,skills,anddispositions—aswellasaccesstoconsistentandpredictableacquisitionmechanisms—toensurethatstudentswithdisabilitieshaveaccesstotheATneededforengagement,learningandskilldemonstration.

Strategies 1. CreatecompaniondocumentstotheIndividualizedEducationPlan(IEP)and

IndividualizedFamilyServicePlan(IFSP)thatpromptteamstoengageinassistivetechnologyconsiderationanddocumentationconsistentwithfederallawandDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidancedocuments.

Rationale: TheintegrationoftargetedassistivetechnologyguidanceinIEPtemplates/instructionswillaffordefficientaccesstosupportsforteamsastheyconsideranddocumentassistivetechnologyneedsaswellastheassistivetechnologyservicesandsupportsthatareneededforchildrentoreceiveafreeandappropriatepubliceducation(FAPE).Uniformguidancewillassistteamsacrossthestateinimplementationassistivetechnologyconsiderationanddocumentationinathoroughandconsistentmanner.

43


Recommendation8.1.1: DevelopandembedelectronicassistivetechnologytemplatesthatcanbeusedandappendedtohardcopiesoftheIEP/IFSP.

2. Createanddelivercomprehensiveprofessionaldevelopmenttoensurethatall

educatorsactincompliancewithfederallawandtheDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelines.

Rationale: Theexistenceofguidancedoesnotguaranteecompliance.Itisessentialthatallpersonnelprovidingservicestochildrenwithdisabilitiesintheearlyinterventionandpubliceducationsystemareawareof,andfamiliarwith,theguidancesothattheycanprovideservicesandsupportsconsistentwiththemandatesexpressedinfederallaw.

Recommendation8.2.1: Createonlineandface‐to‐faceprofessionallearningopportunitiesforallmembersofachild’sIEP/IFSPteam.Thecontentshouldbedifferentiatedforarangeofaudienceswhoneedvaryingdegreesofdetail,andtherewillalsobeanoverviewdevelopedforfamiliesandstudents.

3. Establishcompetenciesforthoseservinginassistivetechnologyleadershiprolestoensurethatallteamshaveaccesstoadequateassistivetechnologyexpertise.

Rationale: Theassistivetechnologyfieldisinastateofperpetualevolution,anditisunrealistictoexpectthatalleducatorswillmaintaincurrentexpertiserelativetotheassistivetechnologymarketplaceaswellasmethodsandstrategiesforinfusionofassistivetechnologyintoeducationalprocesses.Rather,teamsshouldhaveconsistentandpredictableaccesstoindividualswhomaintainahighlevelofcompetencerelativetoassistivetechnologyandwhocanassistteamsinassistivetechnologyconsideration,evaluation,selectionanduse.

Recommendation8.3.1: Devisecompetenciesforthoseservinginassistivetechnologyleadershiprolesintheearlyinterventionandeducationalcontexts.Thecompetenciesshouldreferencehigh‐qualityeducationalpractices,expertiseinconsultationandfacilitationofteamprocesses,andtheexpectationthatthoseinATleadershiproleswillhavethedispositions,breadthofknowledge,anddepthofskilltosupportthefullrangeofATneededbystudents.

Current Funding Streams for Educational Technology Ifweexpecttohaveavibranttechnologyinfrastructure,computingdevicesinthehandsofourstudents,andteacherstrainedintheintegrationoftechnologythatwillprepareourstudentstobecollegeandcareerready,thestateneedstoprovidetheLEAsandstateagencieswithconsistent,dedicatedfundingstreamsfortechnologythatallowtheflexibilityfortheLEAstodeterminelocalneedandfundappropriately.

Broadband Funding Streams Since1994thestatehasprovidedarobusttechnologyinfrastructurethroughtheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformationthatprovidesbroadbandaccesstotheInternet

44


alongwithallcorenetworkservices.BroadbandaccessmigratedfromT1lines(1.4Mbps)to10Mbpscircuitsbeginningin2005withthevastmajorityofschoolsmigratedby2007andtheremainingschoolsbeingcompletedpriortoonlineassessmentin2010.TenMbpsstillremainsasthebaselinefundedbythestate,althoughLEAshavetheoptionofincreasingthisbandwidthattheircostcreatingequityissuesacrossthestate.Thedistrictsuperintendents,toensurecapacitytodeliverdigitallearningopportunitiestoourstudents,havemadetheincreaseofbroadbandaccesstoaminimumof100Mbpsintheelementaryschoolsand1Gbps(1,000Mbps)inthemiddleschoolsandhighschoolastheirnumberonefundingrequestforFY17.

IncreasingbroadbandaccesswillalsoinvolveupgradingcapacityatthecoreofthenetworkatDTIandupgradingtheinternalnetworksintheschoolssuchasswitches,fiberbetweenwiringclosets(thefiberiscurrentlycloseto20yearsoldandisnotcapableoftransmittingbroadbandspeedsof1Gbpsand10Gbps),andwirelessaccess.Currently,eventhoughthestatehastraditionallysupportedthetelecommunicationsinfrastructure,theLEAsarefullyresponsibleforthewirelessnetworksinourschoolsincludingallcostsandwhatwirelesssystemtouse.

Since1998,therehasbeenfederalsupportthroughtheE‐rateprogramforbothbroadbandaccess(Category1services)andinternalconnections(Category2services).WiththeE‐ratemodernizationin2014,Delawarenowhastheopportunitytoreceivefundingforinternalconnections,includingwireless.TheE‐rateprovidesatremendousopportunitytoupgradetheinternaltelecommunicationsinfrastructureofourschoolswiththesupportofCategory2fundsatgreatcostsavings.WithE‐rateCategory2services,eachschoolcanrequestupto$150perstudentoverafive‐yearperiod.UsingE‐ratediscountdataandstudentenrollmentforthe2015‐2016schoolyear,therewere135,152studentswhichmeansourschoolscanrequestover$20million($20,272.8)inE‐rateCategory2servicesthatwillbediscountedby$14,604.5(72.04%)withthebalance,overthefive‐yearfundingcycle,of$5,668.3beingtheresponsibilityoftheschools.Currently,thisentirecostfallsontheLEAseventhoughtraditionally,thestatehassupportedthetelecommunicationsinfrastructure.Asthisreportisbeingwritten,thesecondyearofthefive‐yearcycleisapproachingandonlyaminimalnumberofLEAstookadvantageofthisopportunityinthefirstyear.

Computing Device Funding Streams Thestatehasperiodicallysupportedthepurchaseofcomputers.BeginninginFY99,withadedicatedfundingstreamforaperiodofthreeyears,thestateprovided$13million($13,000.0)withthedistrictsproviding$7million($7,000.0)forclassroomtechnology.InFY99,knowingthattheinfluxofcomputerswouldrequiretechnicalsupport,districtsweregiventhecapabilityofgeneratinghalftheirlocalmatch(approximately$3.5million($3,500.0)statewide)in“matchingfunds”fromthetaxbasefortechnicalsupport.Withtheadventofonlineassessmentandtheconcernofhavingenoughcomputerstosupportbothonlineassessmentanddigitallearning,beginninginFY14thestateprovided$2.65million($2,650.0)inannualfundingforthepurchaseoftechnologytosupportonlineassessment,throughadedicatedfundingstreamviatheOfficeofManagementandBudget,.

Overtheyears,thefundingoftechnologysupportandreplacementcyclesforcomputershavebeentopicsofdiscussion.InFY01theTechnologyBlockGrantof$1million($1,000.0)wasputintoplacetoaddresstheseissuesgivingdistrictsafundingstreamtoprovidetechnologysupportandtopurchasecomputers.TheTechnologyBlockGrantisagoodfundingmechanism,buthasneverbeenfundedatthelevelsufficienttosupplytheneeded

45


supportorreplacementcyclesforcomputers.InFY16,theTechnologyBlockGrantwas$2.25million($2,250.0).

TheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologysupportsonlineprofessionallearningandmandatorytrainingthroughtheeLearningDelawareprogram.FundingforeLearningDelawarecomesfromtheDCEToperationsbudget.Oureducatorsdeservejust‐in‐time,ondemand,self‐pacedcoursesandonlineprofessionallearningopportunitiesalignedtoidentifiedareasofgrowthforcontinuousimprovement.Inaddition,thereisn’tsufficientfundingtosupportthedevelopmentoftherepositoryofinstructionalmaterialincludingthevettingofresources.TheminimaleLearningDelawarebudgetwillneedtobeincreasedtomeetthedemand.

TheeLearningDelawareprogramusestheSchoologyLearningManagementSystemtodeliveronlinecontent.Inaddition,24LEAs(121schoolswithapproximately80,000students)areusingSchoologytodeliverblendedlearningopportunitiestoK‐12students.TheDDOEandLEAshaveacostsharefortheSchoologyaccountswherethestatepays$1.83perstudentaccountandtheLEAspay$1.50.Withthepurchaseofstudentaccounts,alleducatoraccountsareatnoadditionalcost.Thebudgetrequestof$48,000($48.0)is$30,000($30.0)tocovertheincreaseinactualcostsincurredinFY16for80,000studentaccountsand$18,000($18.0)fortheexpectedincreaseto110,000studentsoverthenexttwoyears.TheGovernor’sRecommendedBudgetincludesthe$30,000($30.0)formaintainingthecurrentuse,butnotthe$18,000($18.0)formorestudents.Inaddition,wehaveaone‐timeopportunityinJune2016todecreasetheperstudentcostfrom$3.33to$3.00ifwereach100,000students.Withoutthefundingfortheincreaseinstudentparticipation,wewillneedtomaintainthe80,000studentaccountsandlosetheopportunitytoreduceourperstudentcost.

Funding Recommendations for Our Path Forward Notallgoals,strategies,andrecommendationshavedirectbudgetimplications,butthosethatdomustbeaddressed.Theremustbeconsistent,dedicatedfundingstreamstoaddress:

thenetworkcore,broadbandaccess,InternetaccessandassociatedservicesasprovidedbytheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation;

internalschoolnetworks,includingwirelessaccess,toachievea5–7yearreplacementcycle;

atechnologyallocationfundthatcanbeusedtopurchaseorleasecomputingdevices,providetechnicalsupport,andprovideforprofessionallearningforeducators;

thematchingprovisionsoftheTechnologyBlockGrantfortechnologysupport; theexpansionandgrowthofeLearningDelaware; astatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources; theperstudentcostofthelearningmanagementsystemforK‐12studentuse;and assistivetechnologyforstudentswithdisabilities.

Thefollowingrecommendationsaddresstheadditionalfundingneededtoaccomplishthegoalsandstrategiesinthisplan.

Note:Budgetamountsareinthousands($1,000.0=$1,000,000=$1million)

46


A. Providefundingforthenetworkcore,broadbandaccess,InternetaccessandassociatedservicesasprovidedbytheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation.(ReferenceGoal2,Strategy1.)

BudgetRecommendation1Supportthe$3,000.0FY17budgetrequestfromDDOEthatwillensureallelementaryschoolswillhave100Mbpsbandwidthcapabilityandallmiddleandhighschoolswillhave1Gbps(1,000Mbps)forthe2016‐2017schoolyearaswellasassociatedincreasesatthenetworkcoretosupportthebandwidthincrease.ThisrequestispartoftheGovernor’sRecommendedFY17BudgetplacingthefundsatDTI.

BudgetRecommendation2Request$1,200.0inFY18toincreasebandwidthforallschoolsto1GbpstoalignwithFCC/SETDAguidelinesandincreaseassociatednetworkcoreservicestosupportthebandwidthincrease.

B. ProvidefundinginconjunctionwiththeE‐ratediscountstructureforinternalschoolnetworks,includingwirelessaccess,toachievea5–7yearreplacementcycle.(ReferenceGoal2,Strategy2.)

BudgetRecommendation3EstablishanE‐rateCategory2fundingstreamof$1,250.0annuallytocoverthedistrict/statecostofE‐rateCategory2eligibleservices.

BudgetRecommendation4ExplorethepossibilityofcreatinganE‐rateCategory2fundingstreambyestablishingaDelawareUniversalServicesFund(USF)forE‐rate,notunliketheDelawareBroadbandFund.

C. Establishatechnologyallocationfundthatcanbeusedtopurchaseorleasecomputingdevices,providetechnicalsupport,andprovideforprofessionallearningforeducators.(ReferenceGoal2,Strategy3.)

BudgetRecommendation5ExpandthepurposeandsizeoftheTechnologyBlockGrantsoitcanbeusedasthefundingstreamfora“technologyallocation”totheLEAsthatwouldincludetheabilitytoprovidefortechnologysupport(positionorcontractual),lease/purchaseofcomputingdevices,professionallearning(DigitalLearningCoach),andothertechnology‐relatedneedsoftheLEA.

BudgetRecommendation6Supportthe$1,000.0FY17budgetrequestfromDDOEtoincreasetheTechnologyBlockGrantfrom$2,250.0to$3,250.0.ThisrequestispartoftheGovernor’sRecommendedFY17Budget.

BudgetRecommendation7InFY18,movethe$2,650.0annualfundingusedfromFY14‐FY17forthepurchase/leaseofcomputersfromOMBtotheTechnologyBlockGrant.

47


BudgetRecommendation8IncreasetheTechnologyBlockGrantfundingbyaminimumof$1,000.0annuallybeginninginFY18untilthetotalamountreachestheequivalentofonehundreddollars($100)perstudent.

D. UpdatethelocaltechnologysupportmatchingprovisionoftheTechnologyBlockGrant

(14Del.C.1902(b)and71DelLaws,c.378).(ReferenceGoal2,Strategy3.)

BudgetRecommendation9Currently,theTechnologyBlockGrantmatchingfundsaretiedtoFY98DivisionIunitallocations.ThematchingfundscapshouldbeadjustedtoalignwiththeamountallocatedthroughtheTechnologyBlockGrantoncetheTechnologyBlockGrantexceeds$3,500.0.

E. ProvidefundingtoexpandandgroweLearningDelawaretoincludedevelopmentanddeliveryofonlineprofessionallearning,researchandcollaborationopportunities,andastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources.(ReferenceGoal5,Strategies2‐4andGoal6,Strategies1‐2.)

BudgetRecommendation10Provide$500.0inFY18andanadditional$250.0inFY19toeLearningDelawaretosupportthedevelopmentanddeliveryofonlineprofessionallearning,researchandcollaborationopportunities,andastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources.

F. ProvidefundingtotheDepartmentofEducationtoprovideatleast50%oftheperstudentcostoftheSchoologyLearningManagementSystemforK‐12studentuse.(ReferenceGoal6,Strategy3.)

BudgetRecommendation11Supportthe$48.0FY17budgetrequestfromDDOEtosupporttheincreaseinannualsubscriptionservicefeesforSchoologyduetoincreaseinnumberofstudentsusingthesystem.ThisrequestispartiallyintheGovernor’sRecommendedFY17Budget‐$30.0isincludedtocoveractualcostsincurredinFY16,but$18.0isNOTincludedtocoveradditionalstudentparticipationinFY17.

G. EstablishacentralizedfundtoassistearlyinterventionprovidersandLEAsinacquiringtheassistivetechnologydeterminedbyteamstobenecessaryforchildrenwithdisabilitiestobenefitfromearlyinterventionoreducationalservices.(ReferenceGoal7,Strategy3)

BudgetRecommendation12StronglyrecommendsupportingtheFY18assistivetechnologybudgetrequest,amounttobedeterminedinfall2016,intheworkfromtheDelawareDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology,perFY15EpilogueSection307.

48


References [1] DelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologyStrategicPlanFY1997–FY1999at

http://www.dcet.k12.de.us/admin/DCETStrategicPlan97Original.pdf

[2] ModernizingE‐Rate,FederalCommunicationsCommissionathttps://www.fcc.gov/e‐rate‐update

[3] RemarksofCommissionerJessicaRosenworcelFederalCommunicationsCommissionTexasComputerEducationAssociation,Austin,Texas,February4,2015athttps://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC‐331901A1.pdf

[4] Thenumbersbehindthebroadbandhomeworkgap,ThePewResearchCenterathttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact‐tank/2015/04/20/the‐numbers‐behind‐the‐broadband‐homework‐gap/

[5] SpeakUp2015,ProjectTomorrowathttp://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/

[6] ConnectHomeathttp://connecthome.hud.gov/

[7] Connect2Competeathttp://cox.connect2compete.org/welcome.aspx

[8] U.S.DepartmentofEducationOfficeofEducationalTechnologyathttp://tech.ed.gov/

[9] NationalEducationTechnologyPlan,FutureReadyLearningathttp://tech.ed.gov/netp/

[10] EducationSuperHighwayathttp://www.educationsuperhighway.org

[11] TheBroadbandImperative,SETDAathttp://www.setda.org/priorities/equity‐of‐access/the‐broadband‐imperative/

[12] BroadbandinDelawareathttp://www.BroadbandNow.com/Delaware

[13] PencilsDown:TheShifttoOnlineandComputer‐BasedTesting,EdTechStrategiesathttp://www.edtechstrategies.com/research‐and‐writing/usk‐8‐testing/

[14] MicrosoftExpectedtoFightBackinGlobalK‐12Marketin2016athttp://www.futuresource‐consulting.com/2015‐12‐K‐12‐Google‐Chromebooks‐2983.html

[15] DeviceRequirementsforSmarterBalancedAssessmentsathttp://www.smarterbalanced.org/assessments/testing‐technology/devices‐and‐browsers/

[16] IsK‐12BlendedLearningDisruptive?AnIntroductionoftheTheoryofHybrids,Christensen,HornandStakerathttp://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/hybrids/

[17] StateoftheK‐12Market2014,PartII:EducationalMaterials,MarketDataRetrieval,http://schooldata.com/

[18] DigitalInstructionalMaterialsAcquisitionPoliciesforStates,SETDAathttp://dmaps.setda.org

49


[19] TeachersKnowBest:Teachers’ViewsonProfessionalDevelopment,TheBill&MelindaGatesFoundationathttp://collegeready.gatesfoundation.org/2015/05/teachers‐know‐best‐2/

[20] LinkingtotheFuture,BRINCConsortiumathttp://www.doe.k12.de.us/cms/lib09/DE01922744/Centricity/Domain/95/04SIIP13‐58BrINCLinkingtoFuture.pdf

[21] Delaware’sBRINCDistrictsCollaboratetoPersonalizeLearningforAllStudents,U.S.DepartmentofEducationat http://sites.ed.gov/progress/2015/11/delawares‐brinc‐districts‐collaborate‐to‐personalize‐learning‐for‐all‐students/

[22] TheK‐12OERCollaborativeathttp://k12oercollaborative.org

[23] TheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)athttp://www.ccsso.org/resources/programs/interstate_teacher_assessment_consortium_(intasc).html

[24] TheInternationalSocietyforTechnologyinEducation(ISTE)atwww.iste.org

[25] TexasGatewayathttp://www.texasgateway.org/?newsid=/

[26] IndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationActathttp://idea.ed.gov

[27] Dell,A.,Newton,D.,&Petroff,G.(2012).Assistivetechnologyintheclassroom:Enhancingtheschoolexperiencesofstudentswithdisabilities,(2nded.)UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.

50


Appendix A: Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 22

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 22

SPONSOR: Sen.Townsend&Sen.Sokola&Rep.Jaques&Rep.ParadeeSen.Bonini

DELAWARESTATESENATE148THGENERALASSEMBLY

SENATECONCURRENTRESOLUTIONNO.22

ESTABLISHINGATASKFORCETOSTUDYEDUCATIONALTECHNOLOGYANDUPDATETHESTATEEDUCATIONALTECHNOLOGYPLAN

WHEREASDelawarestudentsaredigitalnativeswholiveinaglobal,connectedworldand

needtobeeducatedinthisspacetobemadecollegeandcareerready;and

WHEREASallDelawarestudentsdeservetohaveaccesstoeducationaltechnologiesto

enhancelearningandprovidethemwiththetechnologicalskillsandsavvytheywillneedtobe

productiveandgloballycompetitivecitizens;and

WHEREAStherearesixschooldistrictsparticipatingintheBrandywine,IndianRiver,New

CastleCountyVotechandColonial(“BRINC”)consortiumthatismodelingtheuseoftechnologyin

classrooms,providingprofessionaldevelopmentforteachers,andprovidingvaluableinsightfor

lessonslearnedabouttheexpandinguseofinstructionaltechnology;and

WHEREAStheeducatorpreparationprogramsinDelawareareincludingtheuseof

technologyforinstructionintheircurriculum;and

WHEREASteachersneedongoingprofessionaldevelopmenttoensuretheyareableto

confidentlyandeffectivelyintegratetechnologyasaninstructionaltoolintheirclassrooms;and

WHEREAStheStateofDelawarecurrentlypaysfor10megabytesofbandwidthtoschools,

whichfallswellbelowtherecommendedamounttosupporttheinternetneedsofthestudent

population;and

WHEREASinfrastructureshouldbeengineeredtosupporttheinternetdemandofaschoolin

ordertosupportcurrentandinnovativetechnologyuses;and

WHEREAStheavailabilityofassistivetechnologyisofparticularimportancetothe

successfuleducationofstudentswithspecialneedsandisinfluencedbythefundsavailabletopublic

schools’specialeducationprograms;and

WHERAStheStateofDelawareEducationalTechnologyPlanhasnotbeenupdatedsince

2001;

NOW,THEREFORE:

51


BEITRESOLVEDbytheSenateofthe148thGeneralAssemblyoftheStateofDelaware,the

HouseofRepresentativesconcurringtherein,thata“TaskForceonStateEducationalTechnology”is

established.

BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthattheTaskForceonStateEducationalTechnologyshallreviewthe

currentconditionoftechnologyinthepubliceducationclassroomsandeducationalsettingsofthe

StateandshallprepareaplantooutlineactionsthatsupportDelawarebecomingthepremierstate

forutilizingtechnologyinpre‐kindergartentograde12education.Thetaskforceshall:

(a) ReviewcurrentneedofexpansionofState‐providedbandwidth;

(b) Determinethecurrentuseofeducationaltechnologyinclassroomsoreducation

settingsoftheState;

(c) Determinethecurrentuseofeducationaltechnology,assistivetechnologyand

instructionalmaterialsforstudentswithspecialneedsandincorporate,asappropriate,

theworkfromtheDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryof

specialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology,authorizedbySection307of

theFY2015budgetepilogue;

(d) Determinethecurrentreadinessofstafftoteachusingeducationaltechnologyinthe

State’spubliceducationclassroomsandeducationsettingsanddeterminetheneedfor

improvedongoingprofessionaldevelopmentintheintegrationoftechnologyand

assistivetechnologyinteachingandutilizationoftheStateeducationaltechnology

standards;

(e) Recommendstrategiesandgoalsforimprovingandequalizingaccesstoanduseof

educationaltechnologyandassistivetechnologyinallpublicschoolsystemsacrossthe

State,includingState‐runschools;

(f) Coordinatestrategiesforpre‐kindergartentograde12educationaltechnologywith

nationalstandards;

(g) RecommendaphasedplanfortheimplementationoftheStateeducationaltechnology

plan;

(h) RecommendafundingplanfortheimplementationoftheStateeducationaltechnology

plan;

(i) Recommendaplantotrackandassessprogressintheimplementationofgoalsset

forthintheStateEducationalTechnologyPlan.

BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthattheTaskForceshallbecomposedofthefollowingmembers,or

adesigneeappointedbytherespectivememberservingbyvirtueofposition:

(a) TheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofEducation;

(b) TheSpecialEducationOfficeroftheDepartmentofEducation;

52


(c) TheGovernorshallappointonememberwithexpertiseinbusiness,technology,or

both;

(d) TheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation;

(e) TheSecretaryoftheOfficeofManagementandBudget;

(f) TheControllerGeneral;

(g) TheChairoftheSenateEducationCommittee;

(h) TheChairoftheHouseEducationCommittee;

(i) OnememberoftheStateBoardofEducation;

(j) FourmembersappointedbytheDelawareChiefsAssociationwithatleast2ofthe

membersfromdistrictsparticipatingintheBRINCconsortium;

(a) OnememberoftheDigitalLearningCadreappointedbytheSecretaryofEducation;

(b) OnememberappointedbytheGovernor’sAdvisoryCouncilforExceptionalCitizens;

(c) OneschoolleaderappointedbytheDelawareAssociationofStateAdministrators;

(d) TwoeducatorsappointedbytheDelawareStateEducationAssociationthathavea

strongbackgroundinusingtechnologyintheclassroom;

(e) OneeducatorappointedbytheCharterSchoolNetworkthathasastrongbackground

inusingtechnologyintheclassroom;

BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthatEducationalTechnologyTaskforceshallbeadministeredwith

staffsupportusingtheresourcesoftheDepartmentofEducationandtheDepartmentof

InformationandTechnology.ArepresentativeoftheDepartmentofEducationshallactasChair

oftheTaskForce.TheTaskForceshallconveneitsfirstmeetingnolaterthan60daysafter

enactmentandshallmeeteveryothermonththereafter.TheTaskForceshallreportandpresent

itsfindingsbyMarch30,2016totheChairandmembersoftheBondCommittee,theJoint

FinanceCommitteeandtheHouseandSenateEducationCommittees.

SYNOPSIS

ThisresolutionestablishesaTaskForceonStateEducationalTechnology.TheTaskForcewillreviewhowtechnologyisusedinpubliceducationclassrooms.TheTaskForcemustmakecertaindeterminationsandissuerecommendations.ATaskForcereportshallbecompletedbyMarch30,2016.

Author:SenatorTownsend

53


Appendix B: Teacher Survey

Section One:Demographics1.1 Inwhichdistrictdoyoucurrentlyteach?1.2 Whatisthenameofyourschool?(Pleasetypetheentire"official"name)1.3 Areyou?

o Aregularclassroomteachero A"specials"teachersuchasPE,music,art,etc.o Aspecialeducationteachero ALibrariano AGuidanceCounseloro Nurseo Paraeducatoro Other

1.4 Howmanyyearshaveyoubeenintheteachingprofession?

o 1‐5o 6‐10o 11‐15o 16‐20o 21ormore

1.5 Whatgradelevel(s)doyouteach?

EarlyChildhood(Ages3‐5) ElementarySchool(K‐5) MiddleSchool(6‐8) HighSchool(9‐12) Other

1.6 WheredidyouearnyourBachelor'sdegree?

o DelawareStateUniversityo UniversityofDelawareo WilmingtonUniversityo WesleyCollegeo DelawareTechnicalandCommunityCollegeo AnInstitutionoutsidethestateofDelawareo NOBachelor'sDegree

1.7 Haveyouearnedanadvanceddegree?

o Masterso Doctorateo NoadvancedDegree

54


1.8 Youradvanceddegreewasearnedwasfrom...o DelawareStateUniversityo UniversityofDelawareo WilmingtonUniversityo WesleyCollegeo DelawareTechnicalandCommunityCollegeo AnInstitutionoutsidethestateofDelawareo NoAdvanceddegreeo Currentlyenrolledinanadvanceddegreeprogram

1.9 Howwouldyourateyourlevelofcomputerexperience?

o Non‐usero Noviceo Intermediateo Experienced

1.10 Howwouldyourateyourleveloftechnologyintegrationintostudentlearning?

o Multipletimesperweeko Onceaweeko Fewtimesamontho Fewtimesayearo Notatall

1.11 Estimatehowmanyhoursoftechnologyprofessionaldevelopmentyouhavereceived

withinthepasttwoyears.o 0‐4hourso 5‐10hourso 11‐20hourso Morethan20hours

1.12 Howoftendoyouuseacomputerathome?

o Onceadayo Onceaweeko Fewtimesamontho Fewtimesayearo Notatall

1.13 Iuseacomputerforthefollowingactivities...(checkallthatapply)

WordProcessing Drill/Practice SolveProblemsandAnalyzeData CreateInstructionalMaterials RecordKeepingandGradeBook LessonPlans Internet CommunicationwithStudents

55


CommunicationwithParents Presentations AdministeringAssessments EnteringorviewingIndividualEducationPlans(IEPs)orpartsoftheIEPrelevant

toyourinteractionswiththestudent Accommodations/AccesstoCurriculum Blended"Personalized"Learning

1.14 Whattypesoftechnologytraininghaveyouparticipatedinpreviously?(Checkallthat

apply) AssistiveTechnology BasicComputerUse SoftwareApplications UseofInternet IntegrationofTechnology Follow‐UpTrainingSessions Blended"Personalized"Learning None

1.15 Whatare"TWO"waysyoulearnbestonhowtousetechnology?

Independently SmallGroup/One‐on‐OneProfessionalDevelopmentActivities Colleagues Students Collegeorgraduatework LargeGroupProfessionalDevelopmentActivities OnlineProfessionalDevelopmentModules

1.16 Doyouteachinaclassroomdesignedfortechnology(meaningatleastacomputerfor

everythreestudentsandaSmartBoardoranothercomputer‐relatedlearningdevice)?o Yeso No

1.17 Whichofthefollowingtechnologiesdoyouhaveaccesstoinyourclassroom?

AssistiveTechnology Personalcomputersorlaptops Television/DVR Projectors Interactivewhiteboard Handhelds(includingcellphones,smartphones,iTouch… Tablets/electronicreaders(iPad,Kindle,etc.) Interactivetable(Smarttable) Gamedevices(NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.)

1.18 Foreachtechnologydevicelisted,pleaseselecttheratioofunit/devicesto

teacher/studentsinyourclassroom.

56


ResponseLegend:1=Onedeviceforeverystudent2=Onedeviceforeverytwo‐fivestudents3=Onedeviceforeverysix‐tenstudents4=Onedeviceforeveryeleven‐fifteenstudents5=Onedeviceforteacherandonedevicesharedforallstudents6=Onedevicesharedbyteacherandallstudents7=Onedeviceforteacher’suseonlyGamedevices(NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/APersonalComputerorLaptops 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/AHandhelds(includingcellphones,smartphones,iTouchdevices) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/ATablets/electronicreaders 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/ASharedLaptopCarts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A

1.19 Thispastschoolyear,howmanystudents,onaverage,doyouhaveinyourclassroom

atonetime?o 0o 1‐10o 11‐20o 21‐30o 30+

SectionTwo:SkillsandKnowledge2.1 Whichofthefollowingresourcesdoyoucurrentlyusetoenhanceandsupportyour

teachingefforts/demandsofyourposition? AssistiveTechnology OnlineLessonPlans Web‐basedinteractivegamesoractivities Websitetodeliver/manageclassinformationtoparents/students Onlinearticlestiedtoinstruction Onlineimages Onlinevideocontent Onlineprofessionaldevelopment GoogleMaps/GoogleEarth Onlinecommunitydiscussionforumsforteachers CloudStorage SocialMedia MobileApps Blogs Podcasts Noneofthese

2.2 Foreachofthefollowingtechnologies,pleaseselecthowtheyareusedMOST

FREQUENTLYinyourclassroom/position.ResponseLegend:1=Managementtoolusedbyteacher/educator2=Teachingtoolusedbyteacher/educator3=Self‐directedlearningtoolusedbystudentsInteractivewhiteboard(e.g.,SMARTBoard) 1 2 3 N/AInteractivetable(e.g.,SMARTTable) 1 2 3 N/APersonalcomputersorlaptops 1 2 3 N/ATablets/electronicreaders(iPad,Kindle,etc.) 1 2 3 N/A

57


Handhelds(includingsmartphones,iTouchdevices) 1 2 3 N/AGamedevices(e.g.,NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.) 1 2 3 N/AProjector(todisplay/showmediafromwebsites/browser) 1 2 3 N/ATelevision/DVR 1 2 3 N/A

2.3 TheamountoftimeyouspendworkingwithApplicationsandInternettoenhance

studentlearning.ResponseLegend:1=Never2=Yearly3=Monthly4=Weekly5=DailyInternetfordevelopinglessonplans/ideas 1 2 3 4 5Appsfortablets 1 2 3 4 5AssistiveTechnologyTools 1 2 3 4 5TestPreparation 1 2 3 4 5WebDesign 1 2 3 4 5Managementprogramsforstudentdata 1 2 3 4 5

SectionThree:OpinionsandAttitudes3.1 Whichofthefollowingbenefitshaveyouseenwithyourstudentsinyourclassroom

duetotheuseofeducationaltechnology?(Checkallthatapply) Abletoaccesscurriculummoreeffectively Abletoreinforceandexpandoncontentbeingtaught Abletoincreasestudentmotivationtolearn Abletorespondtoavarietyoflearningstyles AbletodemonstratesomethingIcan'tshowanyotherway Abletomakestudentsmoretechnology‐literate Abletoprovideadditionalpracticetostrugglinglearners/students Abletochangethepaceofclassroomwork Abletoteachcurrenteventsandbreakingnews Noneofthese NotApplicable

3.2 Whichofthefollowingstatementsdescribehowyoufeelabouttheuseofeducational

technologyintheclassroomtoday?(Checkallthatapply) Thetechnologytodayallowsteacherstodomuchmorethaneverbefore Technologyisanewandexcitingwayofcommunicatingwithandmotivating

students Kidstodayaredigitalnatives;weneedourclassroomstoembracea21stcentury

curriculum Technologyisamotivatingandusefultool,butshouldnotbeoverlyreliedupon Technologyisateachingaidthatwouldbehardtolivewithout Technologyhasanoticeableimpactonstudentlearning Studentsareabletoharnessthepowerofthetechnologythatkidsarealready

surroundedbyandusingitforeducationalprogress Technologycreatesanenvironmentofgreaterstudentcollaboration Iusedtobeskepticalaboutdigitalmediabenefits,butamnowastrongsupporter Technologyisbecomingmoreofacrutchthanitoughttobe Technologyismoreofadistractionthananteachingasset Technologyrequirestoomuchplanning/maintenance

58


Noneofthese3.3 Pleasechoosethestatementthatbestappliestoyourcurrentthinking.

o Iwishwehadmoretechnologyinmyclassroom/ourclassrooms.o Iwishwehadlesstechnologyinmyclassroom/ourclassrooms.o Mystudents/ourstudentswantmoretechnologyintheclassroombutIdonot.o Theleveloftechnologywehavenowisjustfine.

3.4 Whichofthefollowingusesdoyoufeelaremostbeneficialtostudentlearning?

(Checkallthatapply.) Educationalapps Educationalwebsites E‐books/textbooks At‐deskindividualresearchandactivities Groupexercisesandassignments Motivatingreinforcer Modifications/accommodationsforstudentswithIEPs Cloudstorageaccess(GoogleDocs,Dropbox,etc.) Supportformotor‐impairedorlanguage‐impairedstudents Photos/videos Other

3.5 Haveyouaskedformoretechnologyresourcesforyourclassroom?

o Yeso No

3.6 Asnewtechnologybecomesavailablefortheclassroom,whichofthefollowing

describeshowyoufeel?(Checkallthatapply) Weneedtouseallthetoolsavailabletous–embracinga21st‐centurycurriculum

thatwillpreparekidsforthefuture. IfeelcomfortableexperimentingwithnewtechnologyasitbecomesavailableI

likenewtechnology,butIwishhadmoredirectiononhowtouseit Iliketheideaofusingnewtechnology,butoftenthekidsknowmorethanIdo Technologyhelpsmecollaborateasaprofessionalwithotherteachers Iwishwehadaspecialdepartmentwhosesolejobistohelpsupportuson

technology Technologyincreasestheneededskillofcollaborationamongstudents Traditionallyweavoidedscreentimeintheclassroom,buttodaytheuseofthe

righteducationaltechnologyenhanceslearning. Iamjustgettingusedtousingoldertechnologyanditcanbeoverwhelmingto

keepupwithnewdevelopments Itwouldrequiretoomuchplanning/maintenance Noneofthese

59


3.7 Ifyoureceivedagrantthatcouldbeputtowardsanyonetechnologyyouwantedintheclassroom,whatwoulditbe?Forthepurposeofthisquestion,pleaseassumeyoudonotcurrentlyhaveanyofthesetechnologies.o InteractiveWhiteBoardo Pads/tabletsforeachchildo Computer/laptopforeachchildo Interactivetable(e.g.SmartTable)o Projector(todisplay/showmediafromwebsites/browser)

3.8 Pleaserateeachofthefollowingtechnologiesbasedonyourunderstandingofeachto

enhancelearning(whetherthesedevicesarecurrentlyusedinyourclassroomornot).ResponseLegend:1=Doesnotenhance2=Somewhatenhances3=Verymuchenhances4=ExtremelyenhancesInteractivewhiteboard(e.g.,SMARTBoard) 1 2 3 4 N/AInteractivetable(e.g.,SMARTTable) 1 2 3 4 N/APersonalcomputersorlaptops 1 2 3 4 N/ATablets/electronicreaders(iPad,Kindle,etc.) 1 2 3 4 N/AHandhelds(includingsmartphones,iTouchdevices) 1 2 3 4 N/AGamedevices(e.g.,NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.) 1 2 3 4 N/AProjector(todisplay/showmediafromwebsites/browser) 1 2 3 4 N/ATelevision/DVR 1 2 3 4 N/A

3.9 Howoftenwouldyousayyouuseeachofthefollowingtechnologiesforteachingand

learning?ResponseLegend:1=LessthanOnceaMonth/Never2=Atleast1‐3timespermonth3=AtleastonceaWeek(net)4=EverydayInteractivewhiteboard(e.g.,SMARTBoard) 1 2 3 4Interactivetable(e.g.,SMARTTable) 1 2 3 4Personalcomputersorlaptops 1 2 3 4Tablets/electronicreaders(iPad,Kindle,etc.) 1 2 3 4Handhelds(includingsmartphones,iTouchdevices) 1 2 3 4Gamedevices(e.g.,NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.) 1 2 3 4Projector(todisplay/showmediafromwebsites/browser) 1 2 3 4Television/DVR 1 2 3 4

3.10 Areyouusingtheseeducationaltechnologiesmorefrequently,thesame,orlessfrequentlythanayearago?ResponseLegend:1=NotApplicable2=LessFrequently3=SameFrequency4=MoreFrequentlyInteractivewhiteboard(e.g.,SMARTBoard) 1 2 3 4Interactivetable(e.g.,SMARTTable) 1 2 3 4Personalcomputersorlaptops 1 2 3 4Tablets/electronicreaders(iPad,Kindle,etc.) 1 2 3 4Handhelds(includingsmartphones,iTouchdevices) 1 2 3 4Gamedevices(e.g.,NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.) 1 2 3 4Projector(todisplay/showmediafromwebsites/browser) 1 2 3 4Television/DVR 1 2 3 4

60


3.11 Whenusingtheinternet...ResponseLegend:1=StronglyDisagree2=Disagree3=NeitherDisagreeorAgree4=Agree5=StronglyAgreeStudentscreateproductsthatshowhigherlevelsoflearning 1 2 3 4 5Therearemoredisciplineproblems 1 2 3 4 5Studentsaremoremotivated 1 2 3 4 5Studentsgotoinappropriatesites 1 2 3 4 5Thereismorestudentcollaboration 1 2 3 4 5Plagiarismbecomesabiggerproblem 1 2 3 4 5

3.12 Ithink...ResponseLegend:1=StronglyDisagree2=Disagree3=NeitherDisagreeorAgree4=Agree5=StronglyAgreeElectronicmediawillreplaceprintedtextwithinfiveyears 1 2 3 4 5Mosttechnologywouldimprovemyabilitytoteach 1 2 3 4 5TechnologyhaschangedthewaythatIteach 1 2 3 4 5StudentsaremoreknowledgeablethanIamwhenitcomestotechnology 1 2 3 4 5Schoolsystemsexpectustolearnnewtechnologieswithoutformaltraining 1 2 3 4 5Thereistoomuchtechnologicalchangecomingtoofastwithoutenoughsupportforteachers 1 2 3 4 5Technologyisagoodtoolforcollaborationwithotherteacherswhenbuildingunitplans 1 2 3 4 5Technologyisunreliable 1 2 3 4 5

3.13 Pleaseindicatetheextenttowhichyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatementsastheyrelatetotheprofessionaldevelopmentineducationaltechnologythatyoutookduringthelast12months.ResponseLegend:1=StronglyDisagree2=Somewhatdisagree3=NeitherDisagreeorAgree4=Agree5=StronglyAgreeItmetmygoalsandneeds 1 2 3 4 5 N/AItsupportedthegoalsandstandardsofmystate,districtandschool. 1 2 3 4 5 N/AItappliedtotechnologyavailableinmyschool 1 2 3 4 5 N/AItwasavailableatconvenienttimesandplaces 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

SectionFour:Preparation/AreasofImprovement/TechnicalNeeds4.1 INeed...

ResponseLegend:1=LessUrgent2=SomewhatUrgent3=Urgent4=MoreUrgent5=ExtremelyUrgentMoretimetolearntouseapplications 1 2 3 4 5Moretimetointegratetechnologyintomycurriculum 1 2 3 4 5Moretrainingtousetechnology 1 2 3 4 5Moresupportfromadministrationwhenitcomestomytechnologyneeds 1 2 3 4 5Moretechnicalsupporttokeepcomputersandapplicationsrunning 1 2 3 4 5Moreaccesstotechnologytoolstointegrateinmyclassroominstruction 1 2 3 4 5

61


Fasteraccesstotheinternet 1 2 3 4 5Moreopportunitiestocollaboratewithcolleaguesonhowtousetechnology 1 2 3 4 5Moreoptionsforprofessionaldevelopmentintheareasoftechnology 1 2 3 4 5HelpaligningtheintegrationoftechnologywiththeimplementationofCommonCoreStateStandards 1 2 3 4 5

4.2 Towhatextenthaseachofthefollowingpreparedyoutomakeeffectiveuseofeducationaltechnologyforinstruction?ResponseLegend:1=NotApplicable2=Notatall3=MinorExtent4=Moderateextent5=MajorExtentUndergraduateteachereducationprogram 1 2 3 4 5Graduateteachereducationprogram 1 2 3 4 5Professionaldevelopmentactivities 1 2 3 4 5Trainingprovidedbystaffresponsiblefortechnologysupportand/orintegrationatyourschool 1 2 3 4 5Independentlearning 1 2 3 4 5

4.3 Doyoueverfeelrestrictedwhentryingtoutilizetechnologyinyourclassroombecauseofthelackofresources?o Yeso Noo NotApplicableo Other

4.4 IfyouansweredYESabove,whatfactorscontributedtothis?

Lackofbandwidth Hardwarenotfunctioning Blockedcontent Limitednumberofdevices Lackoftraining(professionaldevelopment) Lackoftechnicalsupport N/A(Answered"No"above) Other

SectionFive:AssistiveTechnology5.1 Pleasereadthefollowingtextandrespondtothefollowingstatementsbelow.

AccordingtotheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationActof2004,theterm`assistivetechnologydevice'(AT)meansanyitem,pieceofequipment,orproductsystem,whetheracquiredcommerciallyofftheshelf,modified,orcustomized,thatisusedtoincrease,maintain,orimprovefunctionalcapabilitiesofachildwithadisability.Onascaleof1to5,with1indicatingstrongdisagreementand5indicatingstrongagreement,ratethefollowing:ResponseLegend:=1=StronglyDisagree2=Disagree3=NeitherDisagreeorAgree4=Agree5=StronglyAgree Atmyschool,proceduresforallaspectsofAssistiveTechnologyassessment,provisionandsupportareclearlydefinedandconsistentlyapplied. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

62


PeoplewithappropriateAssistiveTechnologyexpertiseareavailabletosupporttheteam’sdeliberationsaboutAssistiveTechnology. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Atmyschool,AssistiveTechnologyassessmentsincludeafunctionalassessmentinthestudent’scustomaryenvironments,suchastheclassroom,lunchroom,playgrounds,home,communitysetting,orworkplace. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Atmyschool,AssistiveTechnologyassessments,includingneededtrials,arecompletedwithinreasonabletimelines. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Atmyschool,recommendationsfromAssistiveTechnologyassessmentsarebasedondataaboutthestudent,environmentsandtasks. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Atmyschool,theassessmentprovidestheIEPteamwithclearlydocumentedrecommendationsthatguidedecisionsabouttheselection,acquisition,anduseofAssistiveTechnologydevicesandservices. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Atmyschool,AssistiveTechnologyneedsarereassessedanytimechangesinthestudent,theenvironmentsand/orthetasksresultinthestudent’sneedsnotbeingmetwithcurrentdevicesand/orservices. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Atmyschool,theIEPillustratesthatAssistiveTechnologyisatooltosupportachievementofgoalsandprogressinthegeneralcurriculumbyestablishingaclearrelationshipbetweenstudentneeds,AssistiveTechnologydevicesandservices,andthestudent’sgoalsandobjectives. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Atmyschool,transitionplansaddressAssistiveTechnologyneedsofthestudent,includingrolesandtrainingneedsofteammembers,subsequentstepsinAssistiveTechnologyuse,andfollow‐upaftertransitiontakesplace. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Professionaldevelopmenthasadequatelypreparedmeformyroleinassessingstudents’AssistiveTechnologyneedsandsupportingtheuseofAssistiveTechnologyonanongoingbasis. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

TheAssistiveTechnology–relatedneedsofmystudentsarebeingmet. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

ThepoliciesofmydistrictareclearrelativetotheprovisionofAssistiveTechnology. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Mydistrict’sAssistiveTechnology‐relatedpoliciesareresponsivetostudentneeds. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

AssistiveTechnologyisalwaysconsideredwhenIEPsaredeveloped. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

SectionSix:YourThoughts...6.1 Whattechnologyresource(s)canyousharewithotherDelawareeducatorsthatyou

havefoundtobemostbeneficialforyouandyourstudentsinteachingandlearning?6.2 Anythingyouwouldliketosharethatwemighthavemissed?

63


Appendix C: Infrastructure Survey

1. District/Charter(LocalEducationAgency(LEA)):_______2. DoesyourLEAhaveanymajortechnologyinitiativesintheplanningorimplementation

stagesthatmayrequireadditionalbandwidth?Ifso,brieflydescribeinitiative(s)includingwhetheryouhaveincludedfundingforbandwidthincreasesinyourplanning/budgeting?o Yes

a. IfYes,__________________o No

3. HowmanyITsupportpositionFTEsdoesyourLEAuse?o 1o 2o 3o 4o 5o 6o 7o 8o 9o 10ormore

4. WhatfundingsourcesareusedforITsupportpositionsinyourLEA?(Checkallthat

apply) Federal State Local

5. WhatunitsareusedforITsupportpositionsinyourLEA?(Checkallthatapply) AcademicExcellence Custodial Director Paraprofessional Secretarial Supervisor Teacher Other____________

6. DoesyourLEAcurrentlycurtailInternetaccess(blockaboveandbeyondCIPA

compliance)tocontrolbandwidth?o Yeso No

64


7. Whatbrand(s)ofwirelessdoesyourLEAuse(checkallthatapply)?

Aerohive Aruba Cisco Meraki Meru Ruckus Other______________

8. WhatpercentofthedevicesinyourLEAconnectviawireless?

o 0%‐10%o 11%‐25%o 26%‐50%o 51%‐75%o 75%‐100%

9. Sincee‐ratemodernizationemphasizeswirelessaccessintheclassroom,wouldyour

LEAconsiderparticipatinginastatewideRFPandassociatedawardwiththeintentofreducingcostsofwirelessaccessinyourschool(s)?

o Yeso No

10. Doyouwanttoallow,forthepurposeofBYOD,studentsand/orstafftoconnect

personaldevicestoyournetwork?Y/No Yeso No

11. InadditiontotheAcceptableUsePolicy,doesyourLEAhaveaCyberSecurityPolicythataddressesBYODandwirelessinitiatives?o Yeso No

12. What,ifany,cloudcomputingisyourLEAusingorconsidering?Pleasedescribe.

______________

13. DidyourLEAapplyfore‐rateCategory2servicesinthefirstyear(July1,2015–June30,2016)ofe‐ratemodernization?o Yeso No

65


14. HowisyourLEAusingorplanningtousetheFederale‐ratemodernizationfunding($150perstudentperschoolover5years)overthenext4years(weareapproachingtheyear2applicationwindow)?(CheckallthatApply) InternalConnections

routers switches wirelessaccesspoints internalcabling racks wirelesscontrollersystems firewallservices uninterruptablepowersupply cachingfunctionality softwaresupportinginternalconnectioncomponents

BasicMaintenance ManagedInternalBroadbandServices(ManagedWi‐Fi) Notplanningtouse

15. WouldyourLEAbewillingtoallocateaportionofFederale‐ratemodernizationfunding

forinfrastructureupgrades,i.e.,switches,internalfiberruns,associatedwithbandwidthincreases?o Yeso No

16. Whatpercentageofyourstudentshaveaccesstobroadbandservicesathome?o 0%‐10%o 11%‐25%o 26%‐50%o 51%‐75%o 75%‐100%

66


Appendix D: Annual Delaware School Technology Survey

67


Appendix E: Educational Technology Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations

Goal 1 – Leadership ThestatewillhaveanoversightorganizationtoprovidestrategicguidanceforeducationaltechnologyforthestateandLEAs.

Strategies 1. FormtheCouncilonEducationalTechnologywiththefollowingresponsibilities:

a. NeedsAssessment–Establishaprocessforidentifyingongoingtechnologyandhumanresourceneedsattheclassroom,campus,districtandstatelevels,includingatechnologyinventory.

b. Policy–Basedupontheneedsassessmentandotherconsiderations,recommendpolicyannually.

c. Budget–Recommendabudgetforstatewideeducationaltechnologyexpendituresannually.

d. Planning–Developongoing(three‐year)strategicplansforthestatethat“mesh”withotherplanningeffortsattheDepartmentofEducation(DDOE),theDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation(DTI),andotheragenciesanddevelopaframeworkandprocessforlocalplanningthatcoordinateswithotherplansatthelocallevelaswellasthestatestrategicplan.

e. SafetyandSecurity–Defineastatewideacceptableusepolicyandproceduresandaprocesstoensurealleducatorsandstudentsagreetothepolicy;ensureallLEAsarecompliantwiththefederalregulationsincludingtheChildren’sInternetProtectionAct(CIPA),Children'sOnlinePrivacyProtectionAct(COPPA),andFamilyEducationalRightsandPrivacyAct(FERPA).

f. Procurement–WorkcloselywiththeGovernmentSupportServicestoestablishafocalpointwithineducationforthepreparationoftechnology‐relatedRFPs,vendornegotiations,andsitelicensesforsoftwarespecifictoeducationtooptimizecoststhroughconsolidatingdemand.

Recommendation1.1.1: PresentLegislationtoformtheCouncilonEducationalTechnologythatwillbesupportedwithstafffromtheDDOEandDTI.TheCouncilshouldmeetquarterlyandhavenomorethan15memberscomprisedofstakeholderrepresentativesfromacrossthestate.

Goal 2 – Broadband and Support ThestatewidenetworkcorethatprovidesandsupportsbroadbandaccessandinternalnetworkstoallDelawarepublicschoolswillbemaintainedandgrownbyprovidingcontinuousimprovementandexpansionoftheinfrastructuretomeettheneedsoftheeducationcommunity.

Strategies 1. Providethenecessaryresourcestoensurethatthenetworkcore,broadbandaccess,

Internetaccess,andassociatedservicesprovidedbytheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformationcontinuallyalignwiththeStateEducationalTechnologyDirectors

68


Association(SETDA)recommendationsfromTheBroadbandImperativethatareincorporatedintotheFederalCommunicationsCommission(FCC)E‐ratemodernizationorderasagoal.

Recommendation2.1.1: Ensureallelementaryschoolshavesufficientresourcestosupportacapacityof100Mbpsbandwidthandallmiddleandhighschoolshavesufficientresourcesfor1Gbps(1,000Mbps)forthe2016‐2017schoolyearaswellasassociatedincreasesatthenetworkcoretosupportthebandwidthincrease.

Recommendation2.1.2: InFY18,providesufficientresourcestoincreasebandwidthinallschoolsto1Gbps(1,000Mbps)toaligntotheSETDA/FCCguidelinesforthe2017‐2018schoolyear.

Recommendation2.1.3: BeginninginFY19,DTIandDDOEwillconductanannualevaluationofbandwidthrequirementsbyschoolandbandwidthadjustedtoensurealignmentwithSETDAandFCCguidelines.

2. Ensureadequateresourcessothatinternalschoolnetworks,includingwirelessaccess,haveareplacementcycleof5–7yearsthattakesadvantageofthefundingcycleofCategory2oftheE‐ratemodernizationorder.

Recommendation2.2.1: ProvidesufficientresourcesfromthestatetoensureallLEAsareabletotakemaximumadvantageofCategory2oftheE‐rate.

Recommendation2.2.2: ExplorethepossibilityofworkingwiththePublicServiceCommissionandtheLegislaturetoestablishaDelawareUniversalServicesFundforE‐rate,notunliketheDelawareBroadbandFund.

3. EnsurethatLEAshaveadequateresourcesandtrainedpersonneltosupportandmaintaintheirdevices,internalnetworksandbroadbandcomingintotheschools.

Recommendation2.3.1: Asthestateprovidesflexibilityinfundingstreams,theLEAsneedtodeterminesufficienttechnologystaffingtosupportthenetworksanddevicesintheLEA,withaninitialtargetofoneFTEper500devices.

4. Enterintopartnershipswithtelecommunicationsproviders,carriersandappropriateagenciesofthestatetoensureeverypartofthestatehassufficientbroadbandtosupportstudentsathome.

Recommendation2.4.1: EncouragetheCouncilonEducationalTechnologytoformaworkinggrouptofurtherdelveintothebestpathforwardtoensurerobustbroadbandconnectivityinthecommunityandhomes.

Goal 3 – Computing Devices Bythe2019‐2020schoolyear,allstudentswillhaveaccesstoacomputingdeviceatschoolandathome,toenhancelearningandprovidethemwithtechnologyskillsandsavvy.

69


Strategies 1. Negotiateastatecontractwithvolumepurchasingpowerformultipletypesofdevices

thatdistrictscanaccess.Thecontractshouldincludeoptionsforprofessionallearning,technologysupport,andprovisionsforfullaccessibilityforthebenefitofallstudentsandeducatorswithdisabilities.

Recommendation3.1.1: FormanRFPcommitteeconsistingofrepresentativesfromDTI,DDOEandtheLEAstodeterminethecriteriaforanRFPandissueanRFPthatwillbeawardedbyspring2017.

Goal 4 – Teacher Preparation By2020,allstudentsgraduatingteacherpreparationprogramsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinusingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheISTEStandardsforTeachers.

Strategies 1. Ensureteacherpreparationprogramspreparestudentsenteringtheteaching

professionwiththenecessaryskillstoeffectivelyintegratetechnologyintostudents’learningexperiencesandofferadvanceddegrees/certificatesforpracticingteachers.

Recommendation4.1.1: TheDelawareProfessionalStandardsBoardintandemwiththeStateBoardofEducationshouldconsideradoptingeitheracreditminimumorcompetencybasedrequirementaroundtheintegrationoftechnologyintolearningforteachercandidatesseekinganinitiallicense.

Recommendation4.1.2: TeacherPreparationprogramsshouldbeencouragedtoofferadvanceddegreesorcertificatesonteachingandlearningwithtechnologyandblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstructionforpracticingeducators.

Goal 5 – Professional Learning PracticingeducatorsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinintegratingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)andtheISTEStandardsforTeachersandconsistentwithPSBRegulations1598and1599andfollowing.

Strategies 1. AdoptandimplementtheInternationalSocietyforTechnologyinEducation(ISTE)

standardsforstudentsandcoaches.

Recommendation5.1.1: TheDelawareProfessionalStandardsBoardandtheStateBoardofEducationshouldexpandRegulation1599beyondstandardsforteachersandadministratorsbyadoptingtheISTEStandardsforStudentsandISTEStandardsforCoaches.

2. EstablishanLEADigitalLearningCoachpositiontosupporteducatorsineffectivelyimplementingdigitallearningtofulfilltheISTEstandards.

70


Recommendation5.2.1: EnsureLEAshavesufficientresourcestosupportaminimumofonedigitallearningcoachperLEAandforlargerLEAs,sufficientdigitallearningcoachestoaddresstheneedsandvisionoftheLEA.

3. Provideonlinepersonalizedprofessionallearning,research,andcollaborationopportunitiesforeducatorsthataretiedtopracticeandalignedtoISTEstandardsthroughanonlinevirtualnetwork.

Recommendation5.3.1: Provideonlinepersonalizedprofessionallearning,research,andcollaborationopportunitiesforeducatorsthataretiedtopracticeandalignedtoISTEstandardsthroughanonlinevirtualnetwork.

4. Establishandmaintaina“LeadingintheDigitalAge”on‐going,sustained,professionallearningprogramforteacherleaders,principals,superintendents,andothereducationleaders.

Recommendation5.4.1: Establishandmaintaina“LeadingintheDigitalAge”on‐going,sustained,professionallearningprogramforteacherleaders,principals,superintendents,andothereducationleaders.

Goal 6 – Blended Learning to Personalize Instruction Studentsandeducatorswillhaveaccesstoastatewideonlinevirtualnetworkthatwillincludedigitalresourcesanddataanalysiscapabilitiestodeliverblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstructionforstudents.

Strategies 1. ProvideLEAswiththeopportunitytopurchaselicensesatalowcostforastatewide

learningmanagementsystemforusewithK‐12studentsthatisintegratedwiththestatewidepupilaccountingsystem.

Recommendation6.1.1: Maintainastatewidecontractforalearningmanagementsystemandensureaperstudentcost‐sharebetweentheDepartmentofEducationandtheLEAs.

2. Establisharepositoryaspartofthestatewideonlinevirtualnetworkwithprocessestodevelop,manageandassessinstructionalresources,includingOpenEducationalResourcesandexpandcurrentinitiativestoincludecurriculumsubscriptions.

Recommendation6.2.1: Provideresourcesandpersonnelsufficienttobuildandsupportastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources.

3. Provideresourcesandprofessionallearningsothatbythe2019‐2020schoolyear,themajorityofresourcesusedinDelawaregrades3–12classroomsaredigitalandareaccessibleforallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilitieswhomayuseassistivetechnologiestoaccesstheirlearningmaterials.

Recommendation6.3.1: ConductadetailedanalysisofDelawarecode,regulations,andpoliciestoensuretherearenobarrierstopurchasingdigitalresourceswithexistingfundingstreamsfortextbooksandinstructionalmaterials.

71


Recommendation6.3.2: Providesufficientresourcesandprofessionallearningsothatbythe2019‐2020schoolyear,themajorityofresourcesprocuredandusedinDelawaregrades3–12classroomsaredigitalandfullyaccessible.

Goal 7 ‐ Assistive Technology: Students Ensureallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilities,willhaveaccesstotechnologythatwillhelpthemlearnandachieve.

1. Createandadoptuniformguidanceaddressingassistivetechnologyconsideration,accessandsupportforchildrenwithdisabilitiesagesbirththrough3.

Recommendation7.1.1: DevelopandpromulgateDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelinesthatspecifyexpectationsregardingtheprocessesbywhichassistivetechnologyisconsidered,assistivetechnologyneedsareevaluated,assistivetechnologyisacquiredandcustomized,andchildrenandfamiliesaresupportedinusingATtoenhanceaccesstoandparticipationinroutinesandactivities.

2. Createandadoptuniformguidanceaddressingassistivetechnologyconsideration,accessandsupportforpreschool,elementary,andsecondarystudentswithdisabilities,ages3through21.

Recommendation7.2.1: DevelopandpromulgateDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelinesthatspecifyexpectationsregardingtheprocessesbywhichassistivetechnologyisconsidered,assistivetechnologyneedsareevaluated,assistivetechnologyisacquiredandcustomized,andstudentsaresupportedinusingassistivetechnologytolearn,demonstratetheirabilities,andtransitionsuccessfullyintoadultlife.

Recommendation7.2.2: Developandpromulgateguidancethatspecifiesexpectationsregardingtheprocurementofaccessibleeducationaltechnologyandtheprocessesforensuringcompatibilityamonginfrastructure,hardware,andsoftwaresothatstudentswithdisabilitieshavecontemporaneousaccesstothesamelearningopportunitiesastheirpeerswithoutdisabilities.

3. EstablishacentralizedfundtoassistearlyinterventionprovidersandLEAsinacquiringtheassistivetechnologydeterminedbyteamstobenecessaryforchildrenwithdisabilitiestobenefitfromearlyinterventionoreducationalservices.

Recommendation7.3.1: Clarify,viatheDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelines,therangeofpossiblesourcessupportingATacquisitionandthemechanismsforaccessingthosesources,andestablishacentralizedfundtoassistintheacquisitionofassistivetechnology,includingguidelinesforutilizationofthefundthatreflectthenecessityofstudent‐specificassistivetechnologyselectionandanexpectationofsharedstate/localobligation.

72


Recommendation7.3.2: SupporttheFY18assistivetechnologybudgetrequestintheworkfromtheDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology,authorizedbySection307oftheFY2015budgetepilogue.

Goal 8 ‐ Assistive Technology: Educators Alleducatorswillhavesufficientknowledge,skills,anddispositions—aswellasaccesstoconsistentandpredictableacquisitionmechanisms—toensurethatstudentswithdisabilitieshaveaccesstotheATneededforengagement,learningandskilldemonstration.

Strategies 1. CreatecompaniondocumentstotheIndividualizedEducationPlan(IEP)and

IndividualizedFamilyServicePlan(IFSP)thatpromptteamstoengageinassistivetechnologyconsiderationanddocumentationconsistentwithfederallawandDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidancedocuments.

Recommendation8.1.1: DevelopandembedelectronicassistivetechnologytemplatesthatcanbeusedandappendedtohardcopiesoftheIEP/IFSP.

2. Createanddelivercomprehensiveprofessionaldevelopmenttoensurethatall

educatorsactincompliancewithfederallawandtheDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelines.

Recommendation8.2.1: Createonlineandface‐to‐faceprofessionallearningopportunitiesforallmembersofachild’sIEP/IFSPteam.Thecontentshouldbedifferentiatedforarangeofaudienceswhoneedvaryingdegreesofdetail,andtherewillalsobeanoverviewdevelopedforfamiliesandstudents.

3. Establishcompetenciesforthoseservinginassistivetechnologyleadershiprolestoensurethatallteamshaveaccesstoadequateassistivetechnologyexpertise.

Recommendation8.3.1: Devisecompetenciesforthoseservinginassistivetechnologyleadershiprolesintheearlyinterventionandeducationalcontexts.Thecompetenciesshouldreferencehigh‐qualityeducationalpractices,expertiseinconsultationandfacilitationofteamprocesses,andtheexpectationthatthoseinATleadershiproleswillhavethedispositions,breadthofknowledge,anddepthofskilltosupportthefullrangeofATneededbystudents.

senate concurrent resolution #22: task force on state ... · report of the task force on state...

Documents