technology audit report june 7 2011 21279

7/17/2019 Technology Audit Report June 7 2011 21279

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technology-audit-report-june-7-2011-21279 1/43

Technology Audit Report

Prepared for:

Northbridge Public Schools

Submitted by:

CTO to Go

Annamaria Schrimpf

Jean Tower

April 8, 2011



Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 3

Process .................................................................................................................... 5

Findings by Area

Infrastructure ............................................................................................ 10

Staffing ...................................................................................................... 16

Teaching & Learning ................................................................................. 20

Leadership ................................................................................................. 26

Appendix A – Survey Questions ............................................................................ 28

Appendix B – Data Systems .................................................................................. 39

This Technology Audit Report by Jean Tower & Annamaria Schrimpf is licensed under a Creative

Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/








Page 1 of 39 Technology Audit CTO to Go

Introduction

CTO to Go was engaged by the Northbridge Public Schools to conduct an audit of the district

technology program. The audit was conducted by Jean Tower and Annamaria Schrimpf of CTO

to Go. A technology audit is the process of collecting and evaluating evidence to determine

whether a technology system allows organizational goals to be achieved effectively. Our audit

will address several components of the technology program, with a focus on answering the two

questions below.

How do the current systems impact student achievement?

How effectively do current systems support staff?

In this report, we will describe our findings and will make recommendations to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of the technology department, in order to best serve students and

staff. This audit includes a survey of all staff, interviews with members of the technology

department and selected administrators and staff, and a review of documents.

The report is presented in three main sections: an executive summary, a description of the

process, and the findings of the study. The findings are divided into the major areas of

infrastructure, staffing, teaching and learning, and leadership.

Based on our own professional practice along with reputable research about technology in

schools, we place a high value on integrating technology into the curriculum and on using

technology to address core learning goals that the school district has otherwise identified as

important to the mission of the school district. To accomplish this effectively, many essential

conditions should be met.

The enGauge framework, developed by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

(NCREL) and the METIRI Group, says that six essential conditions have to exist in school districts

for truly effective use of technology to take place. The six conditions are in the dimensions of

vision, effective practice, equity, leadership, access, and educator proficiency. The

Massachusetts state technology plan guidelines are based in part on the School Technology and

Readiness (STaR) Chart. This framework lists the essential ingredients as teaching and learning,

educator preparation and development, administration and support services, and infrastructure

for technology. Our audit framework uses the best of both of these taxonomies.

Crosswalk:

EnGauge MA STaR Chart Audit

effective practice teaching and learningteaching and learning

educator proficiency educator preparation and development

vision & leadership administration and support services leadership & staffing

Access & equity infrastructure for technology infrastructure




For each of the four areas in which we gathered data, we developed the following broad

questions that guided our inquiry.

Infrastructure

Do students and staff have robust and equitable access to reliable and fast technology, anytime

and anywhere? Is the access adequate to support teaching and learning? Are there computerlabs, mobile labs, classroom computers and laptops for teachers? Is there access to digital tools

beyond computers – interactive white boards, document cameras, video cameras, and

projectors?

Staffing

Do teachers have access to technology coaches during planning and while teaching? Is there a

fully-functional and well-supported technology department that maintains systems and

provides coordinated services and curriculum support? Does the technology staff function as a

cohesive unit that supports both of the functions of administration and teaching and learning?

Teaching and Learning

Are teachers modeling technology learning and growth in a Professional Learning Community?

Are educators prepared to use technology for teaching and learning? Are educators skilled in

creating learning environments to capitalize on the impact that technology has on learning? Is

technology fully integrated throughout curriculum, instruction, and assessment, in order to

ensure 21st

century outcomes?

Leadership

Has the district developed a vision that guides the implementation of technology? Is the vision

widely known and shared by all and is it regularly evaluated, refocused, and revised? Are all

stakeholders committed to the vision? Does the vision drive planning, and are both focused oneducational outputs and instructional goals? Do administrators recognize exemplary use of

technology in instruction and do they provide constructive feedback to teachers on their

technology use? Is there a coordinated funding strategy to meet the goals of the technology

plan?

In addition to the broad questions above, we looked for alignment and compliance with

Massachusetts state technology planning guidelines (Local Technology Plan Guidelines,

www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/standards/itstand.pdf) and looked for evidence to help answer the

specific questions central to this investigation.

How do the current systems impact student achievement?How effectively do current systems support staff?




Executive Summary

Annamaria Schrimpf and Jean Tower of CTO to Go conducted a technology audit for the

Northbridge Public Schools from February through April of 2011. Throughout the process, we

were impressed by the firm commitment of many in the school system to improve academic

achievement and the 21st

century skills of students. In fact, one of the stated District Goals ofthe Northbridge Public Schools is, “To seamlessly integrate technology across all classrooms in

order to effectively prepare students for the 21st Century.”

We found many commendable practices and successful implementations of technology, and

provide recommendations in infrastructure, staffing, teaching and learning, and leadership to

help the district approach their goal of effectively preparing students for the 21st

century.

We recommend a computer replacement cycle of five years and improving the student to

computer ratio at all levels. The district has improved internet bandwidth and should continue

to do so. We suggest a rigorous and comprehensive review of the use of open source software,

paying close attention to the total cost of ownership. In addition, one of the most important

things that must happen in the area of infrastructure is to develop a plan that is based on the

shared vision of educators, parents, and community members. Infrastructure decisions should

be clearly aligned to district strategic goals.

A critical component of technology in schools is staffing. There must be people who maintain

the systems, support users, and guide the vision. We find that the technology department in

Northbridge is heavily weighted toward technical support. We recommend that the district

reorganizes the technology department in order to provide more balance. Increasing

instructional support and providing leadership for the department are critical needs in order to

continue to make progress and will bring the district closer to compliance with state standards.

In the reorganization process, it will be important to provide cross-training and to shareinformation outside of the department.

A Snapshot of Staffing 2002 Versus Today

2002 Today

1 FTE Technology Director

1 FTE Information Systems Manager

3 FTE Instructional Technology Specialists

3 FTE Technology Systems

1 FTE Secretarial/Administrative Support

0 FTE Technology Director

1 FTE Information Systems Manager

1 FTE Instructional Technology Specialist

3 FTE Technology Systems

0 FTE Secretarial/Administrative Support

The Massachusetts Teacher Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT) and the National Educational

Technology Standards (NETs) for teachers are guiding documents that clearly outline the

recommended proficiency levels for teachers. We recommend that the district provide more

professional development (PD), co-teaching, coaching, and support opportunities for teachers,

because research shows that there is a direct correlation between teacher skills and comfort

level and student use of technology in schools. The most efficient way to ensure 21st

century




skills for students is through educators with 21st

century skills. We also suggest that the

coordination and facilitation provided by a district-wide Coordinator or Technology Director will

help to focus technology projects and initiatives on learning outcomes.

The district is committed to providing 21st

century learning environments, but among staff,

there is confusion and a lack of clarity about the vision. People outside of the technology

department lacked awareness of the Technology Plan. We suggest that the district convene a

task force to write a comprehensive, long-term technology plan. The task force should include a

school committee members, administrators, teachers, and technology personnel.

Further documentation to support these recommendations is found in the sections that follow.

In each section, the report also commends the existing achievements in these areas.




Process

This audit relies on data gathered through staff surveys, staff interviews, and a review of district

documents.

The timetable of the audit appears below.

Audit benchmarks Responsibility Target dates

Develop customized online teacher survey Consultants February 25, 2011

Preview and approve survey Various Staff February 25, 2011

Deploy survey Superintendent/Leadership March 3-7

Conduct onsite interviews Consultants March 10, 2011

Review existing documentation Consultants March 11-April 4

Analyze surveys and interviews Consultants March 11-April 4

Draft final report Consultants March 11-April 4

Submission of final technology audit Consultants April 8, 2011

Present findings to Interviewed Staff Consultants April 15, 2011

Present findings at School Committee

Meeting

Consultants April 2011

The survey was developed by CTO to Go, and was refined with feedback from several staff

members who piloted it. The survey was an online instrument and administered solely online.

An email informing staff about the survey and asking them to complete it was sent by the

superintendent to all staff, and principals followed up with reminders. From a possible 369 staff

members, 227 completed the survey, for a response rate of 61%.




School or Building Staff at

Location

Staff

Respondents

Response

Percent

Northbridge Elementary School 81 46 56.8%

Balmer School 79 45 57%

Northbridge Middle School 101 54 53.5%Northbridge High School 87 59 67.8%

Multiple Buildings 9 9 100%

Central Office 12 14 102%

Teaching CapacityStaff

Respondents

Response

Percent

ClassroomTeacher 64 40.0%

MathTeacher 6 3.8%

ScienceTeacher 8 5.0%

EnglishTeacher 3 1.9%

SocialStudiesTeacher 7 4.4%

WorldLanguagesTeacher 4 2.5%

Health/PhysEdTeacher 3 1.9%

Fine&PerformingArtsTeacher 5 3.1%

RelatedArtsTeacher 0 0.0%

LibraryMediaSpecialist 3 1.9%

SpecialEducator 25 15.6%

Teaching/InstructionalAssistant 28 17.5%

TitleI 4 2.5%

Survey results are referenced in the relevant sections under findings.

Annamaria Schrimpf and Jean Tower of CTO to Go spent a day interviewing staff. The interviews

were each about an hour long. Everyone was friendly, helpful, and sharing and the

conversations were informative. We talked about the responsiveness of the technology team,

how everyone worked together, and heard about schedules, what works well, and what people

might like to see improved. It would not be possible to list every question and response here,

but below are some representative questions that initiated conversations.

Among other things, we asked the technology team members to describe their typical work

days, how they coordinated their work, where their primary location was, how they

communicated to others about the status of projects, who set priorities for their work, and

what kind of reporting they did on a regular basis and to whom. We also asked what they

thought they did well (as a team), what the areas of challenge were, and what their frustrations

were. We had read the technology reports before coming to the school district, but we also

asked clarifying questions about the infrastructure – computers and networks. These

conversations helped to paint a more complete picture of the technology infrastructure and the

work flow of the department.




We asked technology teachers about their typical work day, their schedules, how well the

infrastructure met the needs of students and teachers, and many questions about the

curriculum.

Administrators and others were asked similar questions about their day, how they interacted

with technology and members of the technology department and whether their technology

needs, as well as the needs of teachers and students, were being met.

Everyone was asked what was going well with technology and what would be at the top of their

wish list in working toward an ideal solution. We also asked most interviewees to tell us what

the vision for technology in the district was and who “owned” that vision and was the

designated leader of it.




On Site Interviews

March 10, 2011, interviews were conducted. The staff members listed below each met with one

or both of the consultants.

Staff Interviewed:• Lisa Adams, Executive Assistant to the Superintendent

• Phil Anderson, Technology Teacher, Northbridge High School

• Barbara Columbus, Technology Teacher, Northbridge High School

• Steve DiMare, Network Manager

• Steve Falconer, Systems Administrator

• Mike Gauthier, Northbridge High School Principal

• Lisa Gogolinski, Technology Teacher, Northbridge Middle School

• Jill Healy, Northbridge Elementary School Principal

• Gene LaCava, Information Systems Manager

• Anna Larson, Technology Teacher Balmer and Northbridge Elementary (substitute forMichele Shorten)

• Steve McKinstry, Technology Support Specialist

• Mary Ellen Mega, Northbridge Middle School Principal

• Kristi Meyer, Supervisor of Administrative Services

• Peter Ritter, K-12 Instructional Technology Specialist

• Nancy Spitulnik, Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning

• Cathy Stanton, Director of Pupil Personnel Services

• Melissa Walker, Business Manager

• John Zywien, Balmer Principal

Documents Reviewed

Annual technology plan submitted by Northbridge Public Schools to the Massachusetts

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (January 2011)

District Three-Year Technology Plan 2010-2013

High School Program of Studies

Inventory of data systems in use

List of technology staff and their job descriptions

FY 11 Budget

Northbridge Public Schools web site

District Improvement Plan 2010-2013




Findings

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) provides

technology planning guidelines for school districts. The Local Technology Plan Guidelines are

based on the on the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart. The DESE states, “These

guidelines are not mandated but rather recommended benchmarks for districts to meet by the

end of the school year 2014- 2015. The Department will use these guidelines to gauge the

progress of districts' implementation in order to approve their technology plans annually.” The

guide is an effective framework to use in planning and in measuring progress toward meeting

the goals of your plan. It is comprehensive, with suggested standards in several areas:

• Benchmark 1: Commitment to a Clear Vision and Implementation Strategies

• Benchmark 2: Technology Integration and Literacy

• Benchmark 3: Technology Professional Development

• Benchmark 4: Accessibility of Technology

• Benchmark 5: Virtual Learning and Communications

• Benchmark 6: Safety, Security, and Data Retention

Our findings will often refer back to some of the specific benchmarks outlined in the state

planning document, in particular, assessing whether Northbridge has met, has partially met, or

is not meeting the standards. The full document, Local Technology Plan Guidelines, can be

found on the DESE web site at: www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/standards/itstand.pdf.

Findings: Infrastructure

Infrastructure – Guiding Questions

Do students and staff have robust and equitable access to reliable and fast technology, anytimeand anywhere? Is the access adequate to support teaching and learning? Are there computer

labs, mobile labs, classroom computers and laptops for teachers? Is there access to digital tools

beyond computers – interactive white boards, document cameras, video cameras, and

projectors?

CommendationsIn the area of infrastructure, there is extensive evidence that the district has a commitment to

providing technology to students and staff. This is seen in the number of computers at each

school, the ratio of students to computers, the spread of interactive whiteboard technology

(SmartBoards) throughout the district, the improvements to bandwidth that have been made,and the initiative to improve wireless connectivity.




The table below shows the number of computers at each school and the ratio of student to

computer, based on the data that the district reported to the DESE, using data captured as of

June 30, 2010.

Location Number

Computers

Ratio Students to

ComputersNorthbridge High School 263 2.54 to 1

Northbridge Middle School 213 3.77 to 1

Balmer Elementary School 118 5.27 to 1

Northbridge Elementary School 107 5.35 to 1

The table below shows how many computers were purchased in the current year, and in each

of the four previous fiscal years. The year the computer was purchased does not necessarily

represent the actual age of the computer. The majority of the district computers are

refurbished, used computers.

Fiscal

Year

Number of

Computers

Purchased

FY07 39

FY08 145

FY09 99

FY10 208

FY11 202

693

The table below shows the number of SmartBoards and projectors at each building. Please note

that each SmartBoard includes a projector, and that the number of projectors (column 3)

represents those in addition to the SmartBoard set-ups.

Location Number

SmartBoards/Projector

Number Stand-

alone Projectors

Number

Classrooms

Northbridge High School 18 13 52

Northbridge Middle School 22 7 62

Balmer Elementary School 12 5 33

Northbridge Elementary

School

3 4 39

The backbone for the Wide Area Network is fiber, a generally reliable and upgradeable

resource. In the table below is a description of the wide area network and Internet connections,

as provided to us by the technology staff.




Northbridge Middle School has a direct connection to the Internet. It runs over

Charter fiber, provided by MEC at 5 Mbps full duplex.

Balmer Elementary and Northbridge Elementary Schools do not have direct

connections to the Internet. Their traffic is routed across the wide area network(WAN) and goes to the internet through the NMS connection.

Northbridge High School has a direct connection to the Internet. It runs over

Charter fiber, provided by MEC at 5 Mbps full duplex.

Northbridge Public Schools WAN speeds are minimum 100 MB and maximum 1

GB. The primary connection to the Internet is through one of two connections, as

described above.

Students and staff have access to storage on file servers which are backed up regularly.The district provides a single login for the network, Moodle, and Drupal.

The project to provide more ubiquitous wireless coverage is in process.

Data is automatically transferred from iPass to Nutrikids and ConnectEd, a process which avoids

data inconsistencies between the systems, and reduces data entry.

The district provides access to fully vendor-supported, enterprise quality, software for many

services, such as special education software, parent notification system, student information

system, email, content filtering, archiving, and spam blocking.

The district provides a dependable system of servers, switches, cabling, and routers to providea robust infrastructure.

The district employs remote desktop access, which can facilitate end-user support and

maintenance.

RecommendationsImprove Student to Computer Ratio Benchmark 4-A-1: By 2014-2015, the district has an average ratio of one high-capacity, Internet-

connected computer for each student.

To reach this benchmark Northbridge needs to commit a regular and reliable funding source toincrease the number of computers at each school.

Replace Aging Computers

Benchmark 4-A-6: The district has established a computer replacement cycle of five years or

less.

In order to reach this benchmark Northbridge must adopt a computer replacement cycle and

commit a regular and reliable funding source to replace aging computers.




Provide Laptop Computers to Professional Staff Members

It is our recommendation to assign a laptop to each professional staff member, providing access

and ease of use during and after the school day to enable teachers to develop lessons,

collaborate with colleagues and other such opportunities that will increase technology

proficiency levels.

Improve Internal Network Connectivity

In specific instances, especially at the High School, it was reported that there are issues with

internal network wiring. The technology support team explained the issue to us as being caused

by the wiring below the floor being compromised over time by cleaning processes. There has

been a solution successfully piloted, and further network cable repair is a project that is

currently delayed for funding.

Improve Internet Connection Speeds

Benchmark 4-B-2: The district provides an external Internet connection to the Internet Service

Provider (ISP) of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students/staff.

The district has made progress to date, and should continue to improve internet bandwidth.While 100 Mbps may seem like a reach, it would still be a wise choice to increase speeds by

some achievable increment annually. The current speed of 5 Mbps is the slowest speed that

typical home cable Internet service providers offer. For example, Comcast and RCN both offer

Internet connection speeds of 5, 10, or 20 Mbps to their residential customers. As more of the

school resources become Internet-based and cloud-based, the speed of the connection to the

Internet becomes even more critical to a satisfactory user experience.

Develop a Decision Framework for Purchasing Software

Benchmark 1-D-2: The budget includes staffing, infrastructure, hardware, software applications,

professional development, support, and contracted services.

While the district does provide many commercially available software solutions with usersupport, maintenance, and documentation, it also utilizes many open source software

solutions. Examples of these are: Open Office, Koha library software, Moodle integrated e-

learning environment, Drupal website software, and Liberum help desk software. Certainly the

motivation behind implementing open source software solutions is to be cost-effective, but

there are many factors that need to be taken into account when calculating the cost of

software solutions. The total cost of ownership (TCO) for open source software needs to take

into account the man-hours required to configure, maintain, support, and train users. The

decision framework should also include user feedback. For example, any move to implement

open-source software should first include a test with a group of users and user feedback should

be counted into the equation. In addition, most TCO frameworks include administrative costs,

license costs, deployment and configuration, hardware and software updates, training and

development, maintenance, technical support, compatibility issues within and outside of the

organization, professional development, and the availability of resources not included "in the

box." Such resources would be lesson plans and documents found on the Internet and

developed by colleagues inside or outside of the district.

It is the opinion of the auditors that the school district may have too many open source

software solutions for a small technology department to support effectively. In situations like




this, technology support teams often spend a disproportionate amount of time supporting

“free” software. In particular, Open Office was said to be unpopular among staff, and

administrators told us about difficulties they have in sharing documents with staff. The

situation should be reviewed closely and a decision made that includes the input of all

stakeholders.

Continue to Improve Wireless Coverage

Benchmark 4-B-1: The district provides connectivity to the Internet for all computers in all

classrooms in all schools, including wireless connectivity.

The current trend in technology is toward more mobile computing. In order to take full

advantage of this trend, the school district will have to provide wireless connectivity throughout

the buildings. In fact, there is a plan in place to continue the next phase of wireless

implementation.

Tend to the Repository of Shared Documents

One issue that several users brought to our attention is that finding district and school

documents can be confusing. Users were not sure whether to look on the web, in First Class, orin Moodle. In addition, there are older and conflicting documents that need to be purged from

these shared areas. It is recommended to standardize on one location for these shared

documents so that everyone knows how to access them.

Disseminate Clearly Articulated Plan for 21st

Century Classrooms

Benchmark 4-A-5: The district provides technology-rich classrooms, with access to devices such

as digital projectors, electronic whiteboards, and student response systems.

Clearly the district is committed to providing 21st century classrooms. This is evidenced by their

recent investment in interactive whiteboard technology. However, in speaking with technology

staff and administrators, it was evident that not everyone fully understood the initiative. Such

understanding is necessary for widespread buy-in and support. The plan to further implement21st century classrooms should include district staff at all levels and the purpose of the plan

along with the plan itself should be communicated extensively.

Protect District Data and Systems

Every technology system should have a continuity plan should disaster strike. Disaster can be as

localized as a flood, fire, or accidental sprinkler system deployment, or as big as an earthquake.

In any event, the district should develop a backup and disaster recovery plan to ensure

continuity of business and systems. Such a plan should also address the storage of key

information. A person or group of people at Central Office has to be the keeper of all system

logins and passwords, and should be able to view, at the administrative level, any system that

belongs to the school district, including the help desk, the inventory database, the filteringpolicies, and all cloud-based systems. The superintendent, as the designated keeper of records

by regulation, should have these records.

SummaryThe school district is obviously committed to providing a robust and reliable technology

infrastructure. However, work remains to be done.




The district needs to review the plan to refresh computers, and to continue to work toward

improving the student to computer ratio at all levels. For all schools and districts, it is clear that

one pressing infrastructure need is to provide fast and robust networks with the fastest

Internet connection that districts can afford. As more software, resources, and storage move to

the cloud, Internet bandwidth becomes an even more pressing issue.

It is challenging to prioritize the recommendations made in this section. However, based on our

knowledge of the district, our top priorities are:

• Improve student to computer ratio

• Adopt a computer refresh cycle of five years, restoring a laptop assigned to each teacher

• Continue to improve the bandwidth of the Internet connection

• Review the use of open-source software.

In addition, one of the most important things that has to happen in planning for infrastructure,

is to develop a plan that is based on the shared vision of educators, parents, and community

members. The plan should have, at its core, a commitment to improving teaching and learning.

Every infrastructure improvement should be directly related to a goal that is centered on

teaching and learning or on the productivity and efficiency of the Northbridge Public Schools

staff. The absence of a leader for the Technology Department makes it difficult for

infrastructure decisions to reflect the needs of students and staff as agreed upon by a wide-

ranging stakeholder group. Instead, such decisions are being made by the technology support

team, who naturally, have a technical perspective. While a technical perspective is vital in

making such decisions, it must be balanced with an educator’s perspective – one that

understands more genuinely the needs of students and staff, and goals for teaching and

learning.




Findings: Staffing

Staffing – Guiding Questions

Do teachers have access to coaches during planning and while teaching? Is there a fully-

functional and well-supported information technology department that maintains systems and

provides coordinated services and curriculum support? Does the technology staff function as a

cohesive unit that supports both of the functions of administration and teaching and learning?

The state technology plan guidelines describe recommended minimum staffing levels in a

variety of roles. There are four benchmarks that address staffing:

Benchmark 2-C-1: The district has a district-level technology director/coordinator.

Benchmark 2-C-2: The district provides one FTE instructional technology specialist per 60-120

instructional staff to coach and model.

Benchmark 4-E-3: The district provides at least one FTE person to support 400 computers.Technical support can be provided by dedicated staff or contracted services.

Benchmark 2-C-3: The district has staff specifically dedicated to data management and

assessment.

CommendationsThe district provides the technical support of three full-time staff members for the

approximately 700 computers in the district, thus providing one FTE per approximately 233

computers. This exceeds the state guidelines.

According to the staff surveyed, when they enter tickets in the help-desk, the ticket is most

often addressed within a day (see graph below).




Help Desk System Summary, 3/23/10 - 3/23/11, as reported by the technology support team.

1863 total tickets closed

52,370 minutes to complete those tickets.

146 were account issues

425 Hardware51 Instructional Technology

132 iPass

101 Moodle

257 Network

94 New Software/Hardware

85 password resets

39 Smart Board related

326 Software Issues

75 Teacher Website

51 Training issue/requests35 Technology use

2 VoIP

40 Website changes/info

This breakdown shows that the technicians address a wide variety of problems. Teachers report

that issues entered into the help desk system are often resolved within a day. This is

commendable. They report that they cleared 1863 tickets in a year and it took 52,370 minutes

to clear the tickets. 52,370 minutes is the equivalent of 109 eight-hour days. The auditors

commend such clear record keeping and the ability to report by category. Since not all requests

are entered into the Help Desk system, this represents only a portion of the work done.Increasing the use of the Help Desk system would allow for more efficient deployment of staff

and more accurate reporting.

The district recognizes the importance of Instructional Technology Specialist support, and there

is one person (one FTE) in this role.

The district has a full-time person (one FTE), Information Systems Manager, whose role is to

provide data management and data compliance for state reporting. In addition, Human

Resources and the information systems manager work closely together to collaborate on staff

data and accounts and are creating a form to streamline process.

Benchmark 2-C-3: The district has staff specifically dedicated to data management and

assessment.

The district has Technology Teachers at each of the schools so that students have opportunities

for direct instruction in technology skills.




RecommendationsAdd Instructional Technology Specialist

Benchmark 2-C-2: The district provides one FTE instructional technology specialist per 60-120

instructional staff to coach and model.

Northbridge Public Schools currently has only one FTE Instructional Technology Specialist, and

thus does not meet this benchmark. It is recommended, based on current staffing levels, tohave two to three instructional technology specialists. During interviews, the technology

support team agreed that more Instructional Technology Specialist availability would help drive

instructional use.

Distribute Responsibility for Data Integrity

Currently the Information Systems Manager submits data to the DESE, gets the error report,

and then directly makes corrections in iPass. We recommend that the error reports are

distributed to person/people responsible for data entry to make corrections. This will, over

time, improve data integrity and accuracy. Additionally, we suggest that the job now titled,

Information Systems Manager, could be reworked slightly to become, Data Compliance

Specialist, and this could save the district money.

Add a Coordinator/Director Position


Northbridge Public Schools currently has no one unambiguously in a technology leadership role.

CoSN (www.cosn.org) and other organizations that study technology leadership say that it is

critical to have a leader who has both technical expertise and a solid educational foundation.

Technology decisions should be made reflecting a strong understanding of the educational

environment. During interviews, the technology support team said that the lack of an

administrative leader in the department was a gap they felt should be closed.

Provide Cross-Training, Share Information Outside of Technology DepartmentDuring our conversations with both administrators and technology support team, it was learned

that there are many areas of technical knowledge that are the exclusive domain of one support

person. The district should require cross-training. Knowledge of a system should not reside with

a single person. This will build redundancy of capabilities and knowledge to ensure efficiency,

the ability to fill in for one another, and continuity of operations should anyone leave the

employ of the schools.

Reorganize Structure of Technology Department

One of the questions we had in mind during the audit was, “Does the technology staff function

as a cohesive unit that supports both of the functions of administration and teaching and

learning?” We find that the department is heavily weighted toward the technical side, creatingan imbalance that leaves educators fewer opportunities to work with an instructional coach or

colleague to provide professional development. The department lacks direct and

comprehensive leadership. In addition, the current structure does not facilitate a strong sense

of accountability, collaboration, or communication. The regular reporting mechanisms may not

be sufficient to ensure optimum collaboration and efficiency.

http://www.cosn.org/







Currently, the Assistant Superintendent meets with the Instructional Technology Specialist on a

regular basis. The Superintendent meets with the technology support team monthly. There is a

liaison from the technology support team who attends the district leadership team meetings.

Goal setting meetings are held by the Superintendent with each member of the technology

support team at the beginning of the school year. Additionally, the budget dictates some of the

goals for the year. On a typical day, given the expertise of the individuals and the technical

issues that arise, they may be setting their own priorities. Department effectiveness could be

improved with a clear and well-defined vision backed by over-arching priorities, and tighter

communication practices.

Summary School districts seldom have the luxury of having “it all” – difficult decisions are made all the

time (in all of our districts) between competing priorities. It appears that over time, decisions

about staffing in technology have leaned a little more toward the technical strand rather than

toward user support and professional development. The result for the Northbridge Public

Schools technology department is that there is an imbalance in that staffing and there are nowunmet needs for instructional technology support and leadership. This is especially true given

the recent renewed commitment to 21st century, digital classrooms, and professional

development the teachers will need to update their skills and practice. We suggest that the

district reorganize the department in order to provide for those unmet needs. There are

solutions that the district could use in order to begin to make strides without great costs in year

one. For example, the district could hire a second instructional technology specialist whose role

is both instructional technology support and department coordination. There could be a long-

term goal on the part of the school department that if the person is successful in these roles the

job could shift over time towards more coordination and leadership.

The highest priorities under staffing are:

• Provide Technology Department Leadership through Coordinator or Director Role.

• Add an Instructional Technology Specialist.

• Reorganize the structure of the Technology Department.

• Provide cross-training and sharing information outside of the department.




Findings: Teaching & Learning

Teaching and Learning – Guiding Questions

Are teachers modeling technology learning and growth in a Professional Learning Community?

Are educators prepared to use technology for teaching and learning? Are educators skilled in

creating learning environments to capitalize on the impact that technology has on learning? Is

technology fully integrated throughout curriculum, instruction, and assessment, in order to

ensure 21st

century outcomes?

CommendationsAll new hires participate in a 90-minute orientation in technology addressing email, iPass and

Moodle.

There is a district-wide Instructional Technology Specialist who collaborates with teachers to

integrate technology into their lessons.

The central office staff felt proficient in the use of the software programs they use relative totheir functions in the organization.

The principals interviewed were supportive of technology integration within their school

buildings.

The middle school program, under the guidance of the Technology Teacher, covers a wide array

of technology topics in Grades 5-8. The technology teacher’s outline that was shared during the

interview clearly articulates the Massachusetts (DESE) Technology Literacy Standards that are

being taught. Students are experiencing a multitude of web 2.0 during these valuable classes.

The technology topics and projects the students were doing were very impressive. The

instructions and guides for the students are available through the Moodle server.Benchmark 2-B-1: At least 90% of eighth grade students show proficiency in all the

Massachusetts Technology Literacy Standards and Expectations for grade eight.

Students are required to take two technology electives at the high school as a graduation

requirement. This requirement ensures that students graduate the Northbridge School District

with some skills and knowledge relating to technology.

The district-wide SmartBoard initiative is in support of 21st

century classrooms, and teaching

and learning.

Recommendations

Provide Focused and Meaningful Professional Development OpportunitiesBenchmark 3-C: Professional development planning includes an assessment of district and

teachers' needs. The assessment is based on the competencies listed in the Massachusetts

Technology Self-Assessment Tool.

Although the majority of the central office staff felt proficient with the use of most of the

software programs, they felt that more structured training for the MUNIS program would

enable them to use the full functionality of the program.




Currently there are multiple areas that resources are found for the organization which includes

folders in First Class, shared folder on network, Moodle server with no consistency, direction or

routine purging of documents maintained. It is suggested to use one conduit to share common

forms, curriculum guides, and other district/school.

We recommend that the district schedule training for administrators including principals to use

resources available both in the district and on the web to optimize efficiency and streamline

processes. In addition, training should be provided to expand the use of First Class as a

collaborative tool throughout the organization.

Hire a District-level Technology Director/Coordinator


There is little or no evidence of horizontal or vertical alignment for PK-8 technology

classes/curriculum. The technology teachers have little direction or guidance from any

administrator. Limited supervision regarding curriculum is provided at the building level, as

well. During the interview, it was stated that the technology teachers had met through their

own initiative a couple of times but not consistently. In order for the technology teachers tobuild a cohesive program from Grades PK-12 they must have an opportunity to participate in

scheduled meeting times throughout the school year. These programs can impact the

development of the students’ 21st

century skills. It is recommended that the guidance and

coordination of programs for Grades PK -12 be done by a district level technology

coordinator/director.

Coordinate the Purchase and Implementation of Assistive Technology

Benchmark 4-A-3: The district maximizes access to the general education curriculum for all

students, including students with disabilities, using universal design principles and assistive

technology devices.

The technology staff and the Special Education department should work closely together toensure that through technology, access to the curriculum is maximized for all students.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) should be considered when purchasing and implementing

technology resources.

Review and Enhance Technology Curriculum and Integration

It is the recommendation of the auditors to align the curriculum with the state technology

literacy standards and with the state frameworks. We recommend reviewing the technology

program PK through 12 to ensure vertical and horizontal alignment and integration into all

classrooms. Currently, skills taught in the technology courses are not always further developed

in the content courses. This impedes the students’ abilities to develop these skills to a higher

level. Without additional staffing (Instructional Technology Specialist) this is unlikely to occur.

Share Current Instructional Guides for Staff

The instructional guides, websites, and videos located on the Moodle server for students could

be a great resource to share with staff. This would enable them to build their proficiency level

and also build an awareness of what the students are learning in the technology literacy classes.




Provide Extended Learning Pathways

Provide relevant opportunities and certificate programs to effectively educate students for

school to work.

Increase Teacher Proficiency Level to Support Technology Integration

Benchmark 2-A-1: Outside Teaching Time – “At least 90% of teachers use technology every day,

including some of the following areas: research, lesson planning, organization, administrative

tasks, communications, and collaboration. Teachers explore evolving technologies and share

information about technology uses with their colleagues.”

The survey results show that teachers concentrate their use in more basic technology areas.

The table inserted below shows how often teachers use technology in their classroom for

various purposes. For example, more teachers responded that they use technology for looking

for information on the internet and for electronic communication (emails & newsletters).

Teachers are not always using available technologies to their fullest power, to promote 21st

skills. This indicates a need for more professional development and the support and coaching

from an instructional technology specialist to increase proficiency and comfort in using thesetechnologies.

This information is filtered to display data only from teachers. Please note that for five of the

task areas that we asked about, the most prominent response is “never.”

Benchmark 2-A-2: For Teaching and Learning - At least 90% of teachers use technology

appropriately with students every day to improve student learning of the curriculum. Activities

include some of the following: research, multimedia, simulations, data analysis,




communications, and collaboration. Teachers integrate evolving technologies that enhance

student interest, inquiry, analysis, collaboration, and creativity.

Benchmark 2-B-2: 100% of teachers are working to meet the proficiency level in technology, and

by the school year 2014-2015, 90% of teachers will have mastered 90% of the skills in the

Massachusetts Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT).

This information is filtered to display answers only from teachers. The higher responses were

under “not applicable” and “never.” This is consistent with the proficiency level of the teachers

as articulated in the summary. The use of technology that is the highest is the “use the internet

to look for information.” This does not reflect a level of technology integration that would

impact student learning.

Develop District Technology Professional Development PlanBenchmark 3-A: At the end of five years, at least 90% of district staff will have participated in

high-quality, ongoing professional development that includes emerging technology issues,

technology skills, universal design, and research-based models of technology integration.

Benchmark 3-B: Technology professional development is sustained and ongoing and includes

coaching, modeling best practices, district-based mentoring, study groups, and online

professional development.




The development of a multiyear professional development plan for teachers will provide

teachers and administrators a clear understanding of the district’s expectations as it relates to

technology. This plan should be developed by a committee comprised of staff and

administrators. This committee should be in addition to the technology committee

recommended to develop a multiyear technology plan. The focus of this committee will be to

design a multiyear professional development plan that will build the proficiency levels ofteachers and will be in line with the district goals. A strong recommendation is to capture

district/school time which would include early release, professional development days, and

other district time to offer professional development. Providing professional development on

“district time” will enable systemic change for the school district. Otherwise, participants self-

select, which most often results in pockets of excellence and limited saturation throughout the

district. Of the number of people with SmartBoards the findings showed that the use of the

resources in the classroom is spread over a continuum of motivated adopters to reluctant

bystanders. One area of concentration would be to focus on SmartBoard training at various

levels offered during the “district time” with the concentration of developing technology

integration lessons.

SummaryThe Massachusetts Teacher Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT) and the National Educational

Technology Standards (NETs) for teachers are guiding documents that clearly outline the

recommended proficiency level for teachers. The district should strive to have all the teachers

reach the “Proficiency” level of the TSAT. At the proficiency level, the teacher has developed an

ability to infuse technology in various aspects of the learning process to include curriculum,

instruction, and assessment. Currently, within the school district, the survey results clearly

show that the majority of the teachers are at “Early Technology” level with some at the

“Developing Technology” level. Since there are many factors that impact the ability of

educators to attain the “Proficiency” level, the recommendations in this report will outline thesteps and resources necessary to guide the teachers in the district to become proficient users of

technology for teaching and learning at a level that will impact student learning. Along with the

TSAT, the Massachusetts Department of Secondary and Elementary Education provides

Technology Benchmarks. Technology plans that address the benchmarks as outlined in that

document should help to support a successful implementation for technology use in both the

administrative and educational aspects of the school district.

Recommendations we suggest should be high priority are:

• Provide focused professional development to address the district’s initiatives, including

the SmartBoard.

• Provide technology leadership through a district-wide Coordinator or TechnologyDirector to ensure a deliberate and cohesive system, with coordination for both

integration and technical resources.

• Develop a multiyear professional development plan for technology integration to

support the teachers in multiple modalities with a focus on the district’s initiative of 21st

century classrooms with SmartBoards




• Consider the purchase of Microsoft Office to support the high school program and

district coordination of document sharing.




Findings: Leadership

Leadership – Guiding Questions

Has the district developed a vision that guides the implementation of technology? Is the vision

widely known and shared by all and is it regularly evaluated, refocused, and revised? Are all

stakeholders committed to the vision? Does the vision drive planning, and are both focused on

educational outputs and instructional goals? Do administrators recognize exemplary use of

technology in instruction and do they provide constructive feedback to teachers on their

technology use? Is there a coordinated funding strategy to meet the goals of the technology

plan?

Commendations:Absent any explicit technology leadership, the current Superintendent and Assistant

Superintendent have, along with their other extensive duties, been coordinating the efforts of

this department.

The district has developed and posted a Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan whichincludes cyberbullying.

The district has a website that has extensive information available for both parents and the

community.

The district has publicly posted the AUP and Internet Policy on the district website. Each year

the district requires a signature from a parent for both policies.

RecommendationsDevelop Clear Vision and Implementation Strategies

Benchmark 1-A: The district's technology plan contains a clearly stated and reasonable set of

goals and implementation strategies that align with the district-wide school improvement plan.

The district is committed to achieving its vision by the end of the school year 2014-2015.

Benchmark 1-B: The district has a technology team with representatives from a variety of

stakeholder groups, including school committee members, administrators, and teachers. The

technology team has the full support of the school superintendent to implement the plan.

The current Technology Plan was developed by the Technology Department with limited input

from any of the school staff, including administrators. The Technology Plan must be developed

by key stakeholders including administration, technology coordinator/director, teachers,

parents, and community members. This interrelated group will ensure the alignment of the

Technology Plan with the District Plan and will build support for ongoing budget and staffingneeds. The Technology Plan should be used to support the budget and personnel requests for

the school district relative to technology. The plan should clearly outline goals and strategies

which will enable the school district to monitor the progress of the school district as it relates to

technology to support teaching and learning.




Hire a District-level Technology Director/Coordinator


Currently, the focus for the technology department is almost entirely on the technical aspects

of the organization with limited focus on the education components necessary to infuse

technology into the curriculum. Although it is necessary to have the technological components

in place, a successful technology program requires a balance, with the primary focus onteaching and learning. This crucial position should be held by someone with a strong

educational background and an understanding of the technological components to support

both the educational and administrative functions of the organization. A successful person in

this position would have skills in project management and would be able to make decisions

regarding technology software and infrastructure that demonstrate knowledge and

understanding of the technical information while at the same time keeping the needs of

students and staff in mind.

Provide Clear Guidelines Regarding Electronic Communication

During the interviews, we heard that there is some uncertainty relative to electronic

communication to parents. Are administrators and teachers to use the district website, sendemails, or distribute electronic newsletters? Guidelines regarding the expectations for both

administrators and staff would be a recommendation.

SummaryThroughout the interviews, people were unable to state that there was a shared vision and few

had any knowledge of the current Technology Plan. The Technology Plan was developed and

completed solely by the Technology Department. The lack of input from key stakeholders has

impeded the growth of the infusion of technology for teaching and learning throughout the

organization. A shared vision and a clearly articulated plan would build a cohesive

understanding and guidelines for administrators when purchasing resources, developing school

goals, and communicating to parents and the community about the needs for their school

buildings.

Some of the recommendations for leadership are:

• Develop a long-range, comprehensive Technology Plan.

• Create a vision for technology that is shared by all staff and administrators.

• Hire someone in a leadership role to guide the district technology department.

• Establish clear guidelines for electronic communication.




Appendix A – Survey Questions

The survey was administered online. Here are the questions that comprised the staff survey.




Appendix B – Data Systems

DATA SYSTEMS (If Yes specify) SPECIFICS

SPED eSped

Library Koha

Parent Notification System Connect Ed

Health iPass

Cafeteria NutriKids

Student Information System iPass

Financial MUNIS

Staff Information Management System (tracking for

DESE Reporting, certification, etc… iPass

Professional Development iPass, Moodle

Email FirstClass

Professional Dev Tracking iPass

Website Drupal

Security Portal (LMS) Moodle

Online Course Moodle

What systems if any are integrated with each other??

Integrated is defined as using a SIF integrator/script to

update information on a regular basis.

Novell LDAP server

connected to Moodle,

Drupal. Ipass server updates

to NutriKids and ConnectED

ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION

Attendance iPass

Progress/Report Cards iPass

Electronic Gradebook iPass

MCAS Analysis State Data Warehouse




NETWORK INFORMATION

Help Desk/Ticket System (Name of System) (Y/N) Liberum

Virtualization Servers? Product used (Y/N) VMware 4.0

Virtualization to desktop (Y/N) no

Connectivity between Buildings Fiber

Connectivity within Buildings Wireless, Ethernet

Inventory Management (Software, Hardware) zCM (Novell)

Wireless Infrastructure AeroHive

Security on Wireless AeroHive Manager

Protocol for network services, etc..(i.e. Active

Directory) LDAP

Policies in place AUP, ISP

Remote access (specific use of this resource)

VPN – Specified Users,

Email. Ipass

Antivirus software Avira

Spyware software AviraContent Filtering Marshall 8e6

Website development software district

Drupal, GIMP, Windows

Movie Maker, OpenOffice,

Google Picasa, Audacity

Website development for teachers

Drupal, GIMP, Windows

Movie Maker, OpenOffice,

Google Picasa, Audacity

Archiving services/product

FC Archive Services, Backup

Exec

Anti-spam software/hardware Barracuda

Imaging software zCM

Backup system and protocols Backup Exec 2010

Disaster recovery plans/protocols/systems In Process of being Updated

Number of servers and specific tasks

13 file/print,web, and email

server

OTHER

Heating Systems, Maintenance Systems Niagara Framework

Security (i.e. security badges)

ID Badges, Code Entry into

buildings

Phone systems ip Phone

Facility Scheduling System BeaconCopiers/Scanners Leased, Scanners – HP



Other Software Resources

Discovery Education Streaming Educational Videos

ThinkCentral (StoryTown online) StoryTown online

Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) reading assessment program

Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC) independent reading

Pearson SuccessNet math online

Inspiration concept mapping

SMART Notebook interactive presentation

OpenOffice Office Suite

Microsoft Office Office Suite

Scratch programming language

ML Test Generator test/assessment software

ExamView test/assessment software

Microsoft Publisher publishing software

Type To Learn JR typing program

WJ3 Writer Reporter Assessment

Zap Around Town mapping and direction skills

Type To Learn 3 Typing program

Virtual Business Instructional Software

Trudys Time in Place Instructional Software

TimeLiner Instructional Software

Studio MX (Macromedia) Creative Suite

SMART Response Student Response Software

Sammy's Science House Instructional Software

Rigby Instructional Software

PrintShop publishing software

Millies Math House Instructional Software

Mavis Beacon Instructional Software

Math Arena Instructional Software

KidPix 3 bitmap drawing program

InkScape Vector Graphics Editor

IceCream Truck Instructional Software

EasyBook book-publishing too

Cross Country Safari Instructional Software

Co-Writer word-predictionBoard Maker PCS Software

ArcView GIS

CamStudio Screen Recording Software

Orchard Math Instructional Software

West Point Bridge Design Bridge Design Software