technology master plan 2011-2014

7/29/2019 Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

1/64

ONTARIO-MONTCLAIRSCHOOL DISTRICT

TECHNOLOGY

MASTER PLAN

JULY 1, 2011

JUNE 30, 2014

James Q. Hammond, Ed.D.Superintendent


2/64

Ontario-Montclair School District Technology Master Plan 2011-2014

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... II

District Profile ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

District Information .................................................................................................................................................... 1

Statement of Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Vision ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Plan Duration .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

LEARNING AND TEACHINGCurrent assessment ..................................................................................................................................................... 6Goals and implementation plan ................................................................................................................................ 11

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Current assessment ................................................................................................................................................... 24Goals and implementation plan ................................................................................................................................ 26Monitoring progress ................................................................................................................................................. 29

INFRASTRUCTURE, HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTExisting infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................. 30Hardware .................................................................................................................................................................. 31Software .................................................................................................................................................................... 32Goals and objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 38

FUNDING AND BUDGETFunding sources ........................................................................................................................................................ 40Implementation costs ................................................................................................................................................ 42

MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................................... 43

EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION STRATEGIES WITH ADULT LITERACY PROVIDERSCommunity Based English Tutoring ........................................................................................................................ 44Collaborative Partners in Adult Literacy .................................................................................................................. 45

RESEARCH BASED METHODS AND STRATEGIES ......................................................................................... 46

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

APPENDICESAppendix A: District Network 2008Configuration and ServiceAppendix B: Network Infrastructure PurchasesAppendix C: District-supported Software Applications 2008Appendix D: Computer Inventory 2008Appendix E: National Educational Technology Standards for StudentsProfiles


3/64


II

Executive Summary

The Ontario-Montclair School District Strategic Plan identifies technology as a key element inguaranteeing a quality education to all students. The purpose of the Technology Master Plan is toarticulate a long range strategy for the uses of technology within the districtto identify the

instructional and management needs for which technology can provide tools to enhance studentlearning and streamline management tasks. Reaching critical goals is believed to hinge oneffectively addressing classroom and instructional needs, improving professional developmentand infrastructure, and expanding funding to ensure that utility of core systems is properlymaintained and supported. This plan does not provide for dramatic purchases of newtechnologies, but does underscore the need to deliver value from systems already in placethrough better professional development and support. Significant changes planned for 2011-14include the following:

Learning and Teachingtargeted implementation. In 2001 the Federal No Child Left Behind(NCLB) Act required (a) statewide accountability systems based on challenging statestandards in reading and mathematics, (b) annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and

(c) annual progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency.Assessment results must be disaggregated by socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, disability,and limited English proficiency to ensure that no student group is left behind. Schools anddistricts that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward proficiency goals aresubject to improvement and corrective action measures. In California, Program Improvement(PI) is the formal designation for schools and districts that fail to meet achievement targetsfor two consecutive years.

New priorities have been established to improve our effectiveness by providing quick,consistent and regular reports to teachers on how their students are doing on tests, with alldata linked to the student identifier system that makes it easy to follow the progress of each

child no matter how many times he or she switches teachers or schools. Using theZanglestudent information system and theIlluminate student performance tracking system, a web-based data and assessment management system, we will ensure that classroom teachers andsupport staff have the tools and training needed. Grant funds and K12 Settlement Voucherswill be targeted to assist site staff in achieving expectations for NCLB reporting and studentachievement standards across all grade levels. Technology Support Providers andInformation Services Systems Support Technicians will ensure effective levels of trainingand technical services.

Professional Developmenttwo new goals. First, all staff will be able to use technology toolseffectively for essential communication and administrative functions and the use oftechnology tools to improve instruction and student learning; and second, that teachers

become knowledgeable in online safety best practices for students usage of 21st

centurytools and be able to educate students on the best practices.

Network Infrastructure objectives. We will provide each site with the bandwidth andswitching and routing infrastructure required to carry voice, video and data effectively,including interactive video conference connections during the coming three-year cycle; andwill provide network access through campus-wide wireless networks where high-densities ofportable notebooks and mobile devices can be used online.


4/64


1

ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT

TECHNOLOGY MASTER PLAN

July 1, 2011June 30, 2014

District Profile

The Ontario-Montclair School District serves 23,000 students from kindergarten through eighthgrade, employing 2,400 faculty and support staff. The district has placed a strong focus on accessto and use of technology for both students and staff, providing 7,043 computers for instruction,an average student-to-computer ratio of 3.2:1. Enrollments have declined since 2002; while thetechnology ratio has improved dramatically from 6:1 in 2008. All school sites and districtfacilities are linked to the district network reaching all classrooms.

District Information

District Name: Ontario-Montclair School District

CDS Code: 36-67819

District Phone Number: (909) 459-2500

Contact Name: Jeremy Wood, Technology Planning Coordinator

Contact Phone Number: (909) 418-6596

Contact E-mail: [email protected]

Alternate Contact Richard Archibald-Woodward, Technology Coordinator

Alternate Phone Number (909) 418-6515

Alternate Contact E-mail [email protected]

Statement of Purpose

The Ontario-Montclair School District Strategic Plan identifies technology as a key element inguaranteeing a quality education to all students. The purpose of the Technology Master Plan is toarticulate a long range strategy for the uses of technology within the districtto identify theinstructional and management needs for which technology can provide tools to enhance studentlearning and streamline management tasks. This plan was written with the understanding thatclassroom instruction and student learning are at the heart of all we do and must be the centralfocus, but they are not our only considerations. It evaluates (1) the districts infrastructure and

support needs, (2) the financial requirements and fiscal impact of technology, and (3) processesfor monitoring the implementation of this plan.

For most classroom teachers the essence of education has been instructionsomething a teacher doesto a student. Since adopting Frederick Taylors industrial management perspective during the 1920s,

educators have emphasized the need for foundational textbooks in core subjects and standardizedinstructional delivery, replacing rule-of-thumb work methods with best practices establishedthrough scientific study. Teachers own the learning.


5/64


2

But technology is dramatically changing our concepts of education, of the roles of teacher and student,and is changing them at a pace seemingly beyond our ability to grasp. Lewis J. Perelman argued inSchools Out(1992) that we are migrating to genuine learning: more, better, faster, and cheaper:

. . . the essence of the coming integrated, universal, multimedia, digital network isdiscoverythe empowerment of human minds to learn spontaneously, without coercion,

both independently and cooperatively. The focus is on learning as an action that is doneby, not done to, the actor.

This shift toward a culture of learning that values the individual as a self-directed agent, someone whodoesnt need a manager to move from point a to b, poses two challenges to OMSD: first, recognizingthat a gap exists between what we currently think of as good education in our classrooms and what

good education can and will be in those very same classrooms with the benefit of appropriate,supported technologies; and second, committing ourselves and our resources to closing that gap in aresponsible, affordable, prioritized fashion.

The Technology Master Plan supports the district's educational mission in its initiative to integratecurrent technology supporting instruction, enhancing students educational opportunities, and

improving administrative efficiency. An essential goal of all adopted technology systems issimplificationsaving time:

as students prepare for the world of lifelong learning and of work,

as instructors teach and plan,

as administrators and support staff strive to meet new challenges more effectively, and

as the community and employers look for better information about students or school'sprogress.

Millions of dollars have been invested during the past decade implementing technology into both thecurriculum and management of instruction. Fundamental changes have been effected during the past

four years in curriculum and instruction, emphasizing systematic evaluation of student learning, staffcommunication, and information storage and retrieval. Federal e-rate subsidies and local funds havemade it possible to bring the world inside the four walls of the classroom via the data/voice/videoinfrastructure commonly called the Internet or the Web. Now the district must leverage thatinvestment and use the technology to help shift the culture of teaching and learning to meet thedemands and expectations of the 21st century world so our students will have the knowledge and toolsto thrive in theirworld.

VISIONReemphasis on Information Literate Students

Technology is a necessary tool to integrate education and community for all students. The U. S.Department of Education (National Education Technology Plan 2010) calls for a model oflearning powered by technology, with goals and recommendations in five essential areas:

Learning: Bring state-of-the-art technology into learning to enable, motivate and inspireall students to achieve.

Assessment: Technology-based assessments can provide data to drive decisions on thebasis of what is best for each and every student.


6/64


3

Teaching: Use technology to build the capacity of educators by enabling a shift to amodel of connected teaching where teams of connected educators replace solopractitioners and educators have access to resources that help them act on the insights thedata provide.

Infrastructure: People, processes, learning resources, policies, and sustainable models forcontinuous improvement in addition to broadband connectivity, servers, software,management systems, and administration tools are necessary for a comprehensiveinfrastructure for learning that provides every student and educator with the resourcesthey need when and where they are needed.

Productivity: Leverage technology to plan, manage, monitor, and report on theimplementation of personalized learning and sure that students are making appropriateprogress through our K-8 system

As Alan November observed (2006), ownership of learning must shift from the teacher to thestudent. Every person should be equipped with the tools needed to deal effectively with theinformation age, becoming information and media literate. Information Literacy is defined as theability to access, evaluate and use information from a variety of sources (Library SkillstoInformation Literacya handbook for the 21st century, 1997).

An information literate person is a competent reader who (a) recognizes that accurate and completeinformation is the basis for intelligent decision making, (b) formulates questions based oninformation needs, (c) develops successful search strategies, and (d) accesses technology-basedsources of information. An information literate person evaluates information and establishesviability of the source, recognizes point of view and opinion versus factual knowledge, rejectsinaccurate and misleading information, creates new information to replace inaccurate or missinginformation as needed (Doyle, 1992). National information literacy standards can be found inInformation Power: Building Partnerships for Learning(1998).

The demands facing learners of the early twenty-first century have extended beyond the basicskills of reading, writing and mathematics (SCANS Report, 2000). Teaching students how toread about, watch, interpret, understand and analyze media-delivered data is of vital importanceand is inextricably linked to technological literacy.

Today, technology affects virtually every aspect of our lives, from enabling citizens to

perform routine tasks to requiring them to be able to make responsible, informeddecisions that affect individuals, society and the environment. Citizens of today must have

a basic understanding of how technology affects their world and how they coexist with

technology. Attaining technological literacy is as fundamentally important to students asdeveloping knowledge and abilities in core subject areas. Students need and deserve the

opportunity to attain technological literacy through the educational process (Dugger, et

al, 2003).

The Milken Family Foundation study (Schacter, 1999), The Impact of Education Technologyon Student Achievement: What the Most Current Research Has to Say, found that children withconsistent exposure to technology, clear objectives and focused use could be expected to showimprovement. Anticipated benefits include:

1. improvements in student assessment performance;

2. increasing numbers of students attaining grade level content standards;


7/64


4

3. a positive and realistic change in student attitudes toward technology;

4. improvements in student technology use and information literacy skills;

5. improved student behavior; and improved student attitudes toward school.

A paradox has developed. While many school administrators and teachers realize that

disadvantaged students have the most to lose if technology is not integrated into schools, theinstructional program provided in schools serving low-income pupils has become distinctlydifferent from schools in affluent communities.

Children's Partnership (Lazarus, et al, 2005) reported that 75 percent of children ages 7 to17from households earning more than $75,000 per year reported using a home computer tocomplete school assignments, more than double the percentage in low income households.

More troubling, the study reported the same pattern in school, where 36 percent of lower-incomechildren ages 7 to 17 use the Internet at school compared with 63 percent of children fromhigher-income households. The problem is in expectations for student use, not school funding.Many teachers view computer use as a frill or intrusion into the instructional time needed tobring children to proficiency on core standards.

"My sense is that more and more educators believe [technology] needs to be infused ineverything they're doing with students and in the classroom. It probably also argues for payingmore attention to make sure the kids who don't have computers at home, or whose parents maynot be experienced enough with computers to support them, are getting the support they need atschool" (Lazarus, 2005).

The four key trends in the 2010 Horizon Report(2010) prepared by EDUCAUSE and The NewMedia Consortium identified as key drivers in technology adoption in education for the next fiveyears all articulate the importance of having a high-capacity network infrastructure in place toprovide access to cloud services, anytime-anywhere access to files and applications and the access,

sharing and creating of resources and collaborative relationships on the Internet. High-bandwidthinternal and external network connections, high-availability servers/services and adequate disasterrecovery systems in place are requirements of providing the level access necessary for connected,21st century learning environments.

1. PLAN DURATION

The Ontario-Montclair School Districts (OMSD)Technology Master Plan was designed andreviewed by a broadly representative group from the district and community to guide all aspectsof technology development and implementation over the coming three-year period from July 1,2011 through June 30, 2014. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated to overcome

barriers, better align curriculum, improve staff development and infrastructure, and reconsidernecessary funding allocations.


8/64


5

2. STAKEHOLDERS

The committee members represent various constituent groups, who will be involved inimplementation of the plan, including: district and site administrators, teachers and classifiedstaff, as well as community representatives. Priorities are reflected for the major components ofthe plan: Curriculum, Professional Development, Infrastructureincluding hardware, softwareand technical support, Funding/Budget, Evaluation Criteria, and Collaborative Strategies withAdult Literacy Providers. The plan describes the relevant research behind the plans design forstrategies selected, including references to research literature that supports how the instructionalmodels improve student achievement. The plan will be submitted to the OMSD Board ofTrustees for adoption upon approval by the California Department of Education.

Analyses have been based on interviews, available policies and plans, and a continuing,extensive review of the literature, surveys of other school districts, and identified best practices.

Members of the Technology Master Plan Work Group

Cindi Aguirre, Assistant PrincipalCarol Arrington, California School Employees

AssociationRichard Archibald-Woodward, Technology

CoordinatorDon Bellows, Network EngineerGorman Bentley, PrincipalDon Bertucci, Chaffey Joint Union High School

DistrictSandra Brucker, Program FacilitatorCyndy Byrd, Assistant SuperintendentVeronica Castaneda, Principal

Chris Catuara, Technology Support ProviderWilliam Corrette, PrincipalMichael Curley, Economic Development, City

of OntarioSultana Dixon, PrincipalLeila Dodge, Assessment CoordinatorElliott Ellsworth, Information Technology, City

of OntarioEddie Franco, Assessment CoordinatorLisa Gettler, PrincipalJames Q. Hammond, EdD, SuperintendentRichard Hurtado, IS Systems Support Tech

Stella Kemp, Director II, Science, Technologyand Math

Mike Lathrop, Assessment CoordinatorBruce Lauria, PrincipalGreg Legutki, Projects Specialist

California Technology Assistance Project(Region 10)

Jon Lewis, Network EngineerTammy Lipschultz, Principal

Ellen Lugo, Director II, InnovationsRick McClure, Ontario-Montclair Teachers

AssociationCraig Misso, Operations AdministratorLourdes Patterson, Assessment CoordinatorStacy Pechan, TeacherEllen Ransons, PrincipalBen Snow, TeacherKris Tabler, Spanish Trails Girl ScoutsScott Turnbull, Director II, Standards &

AssessmentJohn Weedston, Director, Information Services

Bruce Wellenkamp, Assessment CoordinatorKarla Wells, Executive Director, Learning and

TeachingDale Wishner, Information Technology, City of

OntarioJeremy Wood, Technology Planning

CoordinatorJack Young, Principal


9/64


6

3. LEARNING AND TEACHING

The Technology Master Plan establishes goals, objectives and benchmarks for the use oftechnology to meet the curricular goals and academic standards established by the district andState of California. Staff development, infrastructure, technical support, and funding are alignedto ensure efforts and resources will be focused to support academic success for all students.

3a. Teachers and students current access to technology tools during and outside

of school hours.

The pattern of technology usage in Ontario-Montclair mirrors data from the past decade reportedby Children's Partnership (Lazarus, et al, 2005). Seventy-seven percent of children ages 7 to17from households earning more than $75,000 per year reported using a home computer tocomplete school assignments, whereas only 29 percent of children from households earning lessthan $15,000 use a home computer for school work. Similarly, low-income parents use e-mail tocommunicate with teachers only one-third as often as parents in higher-income households.

The study found that only 36 percent of lower-income children ages 7 to 17 use the Internet at

school, even though 100 percent of public schools have Internet connectionswith 95 percent ofthose connections being broadband. Sixty-three percent of the children from higher-incomehouseholds use the Internet at school.

"My sense is that more and more educators believe [technology] needs to be infused ineverything they're doing with students and in the classroom. It probably also argues for payingmore attention to make sure the kids who don't have computers at home, or whose parents maynot be experienced enough with computers to support them, are getting the support they need atschool" (Lazarus, 2005).

Students in the Ontario-Montclair School District do not all have easy or equitable access tocomputers and other technologies. Depending on the school, the average number of studentsexpected to share access to a computer ranges from 3 to 20+. In addition, the quantity andcapability of computers and other key technology tools needed to support teaching and learningvary widely throughout the district. Half of the computers used for instruction are at least 2 yearsold, reaching their end of life. At all schools, each classroom has at least one or two desktopcomputers, with some classrooms having five or six. Although teachers have computer accessthroughout the work day, the ratio of PCs to pupils reaches the expected norm of 1:6 (middleschools) or 1:7 (elementary schools) at nearly all of the sites. The other schools have purchasedfewer computers than necessary to provide the expected value. (The most recent inventorydetailing hardware installations at each school is presented in Appendix D.) Scattering a smallnumber of computers into classrooms provides nearly no benefit to students, since neither corelessons nor appropriate follow-up practice can be structured in a way that provides each childwith enough time to complete meaningful work.

The District made implementedDataDirectorstudent assessment management system in 2008 toprovide teachers with granular reporting on student assessment data. The detailed level ofreporting has allowed teachers to differentiate instruction and provide necessary studentintervention programs targeting the areas students are most in need. Illuminate is beingimplemented to replaceDataDirectorduring the 2011-2012 school year.Illuminate has the samereporting features ofDataDirectorbut with increased features such as making the scanning ofassessments available to classroom teachers and providing more reporting options on CST and


10/64


7

benchmark data, freeing up support personnel to provide other services to the teachers andstudents.

Sample breakdown of 2009-2010 Math CST data from Illuminate

Strides have been made at the district-level to decrease the student to computer ratio through thepurchase of over 2,000 mobile thin clients use school modernization funds and schoolimprovement grants. The portability of mobile computers allow labs to travel to the students,letting the learning take place in the same environment students use on a daily basis and are most

comfortable.

Distribution of Computers Less than 4 Years Old Used for Instructional Purposes

School Classroom Lab Library/Media Center

Arroyo 125 0 30

Berlyn 181 36 5

Bon View 195 0 0

Buena Vista 104 44 1

Central 100 0 62

Corona 293 0 0

Del Norte 171 0 0Edison 102 0 0

El Camino 111 12 0

Elderberry 111 33 0

Euclid 118 5 1

Hawthorne 200 24 6

Haynes 104 0 0

Howard 143 16 15

Kingsley 159 20 3

Lehigh 360 132 0

Lincoln 125 0 0

Mariposa 150 0 0Mission 300 120 25

Monte Vista 84 32 0

Montera 216 0 0

Moreno 101 60 15

Ramona 84 0 2

Sultana 432 34 2

Vineyard 248 32 19


11/64


8

Vista Grande 123 81 0

De Anza 218 0 3

Oaks 217 32 60

Serrano 193 45 0

Vernon 157 30 6

Vina Danks 344 134 6

Wiltsey 249 40 2

Half of the districts schools have concentrated some computers in learning labs; through adistrict initiative, all have purchased mobile carts with wireless notebook computers; some haveboth a lab and a significant numbers of classroom computers. Carts are checked out to teachersto support students projects. Lab-based participation is commonly handled on a periodicclassroom rotation basis. Many classrooms are equipped with a 27" inch or smaller televisionand a VCR; very few have a DVD player and most have an LCD projector. Laser printers havereplaced inefficient ink-jet printers, drastically reducing operating/supply costs in nearly allclassrooms. Adoption of interactive white boards has proceeded dramatically during the past

three years as teachers recognized the impact on student engagement. Interactive whiteboards arenow installed in nearly all district classrooms.

High speed network connections, fast enough to sustain streaming instructional video and audiocontent, link nearly all computers. Campus switching equipment has been replaced/upgraded at15 schools during the past two years, keeping to a five-year replacement cycle.

A growing number of schools have begun to introduce other instructional technologies such asdocument cameras and student response systems into classrooms for teacher and student use. Despite earlier success with AlphaSmart keyboards for teaching keyboard familiarity andenabling students to type compositions at their desks and then transmit the text to a computer forfurther editing, use in the past four years had decreased markedly.

While 27 schools provided students with access to computers outside of the normal school day in2007, in 2010 only 19 schools still provided access outside of the instructional day. Althoughcomputers in classrooms, libraries and computer labs might be available at some schools, theAfter School Education and Safety (ASES) Program implemented during 2007 has emphasizedrecreational activities, rather than academic ones, during its initial phase.

Before and After School Computer Access

School Before School After School Other

Arroyo No No No

Berlyn Yes Yes Yes

Bon View No No Yes

Buena Vista No No NoCentral No No No

Corona No No No

Del Norte No No No

Edison No No Yes

El Camino Yes Yes No

Elderberry Yes Yes Yes


12/64


9

Euclid No No No

Hawthorne No No Yes

Haynes No No No

Howard Yes Yes Yes

Kingsley Yes Yes, sometimes Yes

Lehigh No No No

Lincoln No No NoMariposa No No No

Mission No No Yes

Monte Vista No Yes No

Montera No Yes No

Moreno No No No

Ramona No No No

Sultana Yes No Yes

Vineyard No No Yes

Vista Grande No No No

De Anza No Yes YesOaks Yes Yes Yes

Serrano No No Yes

Vernon Yes Yes Yes

Vina Danks Yes Yes Yes

Wiltsey No No Yes

All teachers have access to computers in their classrooms before, during and after school.Additionally, all teachers have been provided with a notebook computer to use both on and offcampus.

3b. Current use of hardware and software to support teaching and learning.

Under the previous OMSD Technology Master Plan, all students were expected to have access toa variety of technology tools and resources, and technology applications to support curriculumand instruction for all grade levels were expected to be developed by the district CurriculumTeams. These objectives were not accomplished. While all school computers have MicrosoftOffice installed to provide basic productivity applications for staff and students, other digitallearning resources are not distributed equitably across the district. This is due mostly to localschool budgetary limitations and decisions; most technology purchases, other than networkinfrastructure, are made by individual school leaders to satisfy site priorities.

Teacher use. In the 2007-08 EdTechProfile, half of the districts teachers agreed with thestatement that they used a variety of technological resources available to me, but only ninepercent reported that My students and I regularly use these resources. School expenditures andmost professional training have been directed toward the seven outcomes listed in the CaliforniaCommission on Teacher Credentialing program standard 16 (2002), Using Technology toSupport Student Learning. The objectives emphasize teacher uses and teacher demonstrates.Most OMSD teachers responded to the recent survey with I know little or nothing or I am

familiar with, rather than I use or I prepare my students. The value clarified through these


13/64


10

data is the belief that students will not learn if teachers do not maintain control of theirclassroom. Ownership belongs to the teacher.

The goals of transforming student learning, of preparing students to read about, watch, interpret,understand and analyze media-delivered data (SCANS Report, 2000) have eluded us. Thisconstraint to quality teaching continues to keep most OMSD students from lessons targeting

proficiency levels beyond basic.Almost no instructional time is allocated for projects requiring students to (a) recognize thataccurate and complete information is the basis for intelligent decision making, (b) formulatequestions based on information needs, (c) develop successful search strategies, and (d) accesstechnology-based sources of information. Despite the emphasis seen in Californias mathstandards adopted a decade back, most OMSD teachers remain unfamiliar withExcel, and do notlead students in using this application to organize, manipulate or chart numeric information.Only six percent of respondents in 2008 expected students to identify, locate and selectappropriate print, electronic and online resources and to evaluate the quality of the informationthey find. Fewer yet agreed that using technology at school was essential for my students asthey work to solve real-life problem.Most continue to hold a transmission model of teaching

and learning, in which students are passive (Meacham, 2006).

Student use. Student assignments in most classrooms do not regularly require the use oftechnology or technology-based resources. Only 27 percent of teachers reported that studentsused computers at least weekly for reinforcement or practice, 14 percent for word processing,and nearly 60 percent said students used them less than monthly or never. In the CaliforniaSchool Technology Survey fewer than half of students were described as ever using computerapplications as part of their school learning experiences in support of meeting state standards.Usage patterns reported for elementary students are echoed at the middle schools where basicapplications including word processing, creating reports or projects, solving problems and/oranalyzing data, and graphically presenting materials are not yet a consistent part of moststudents instructional experience. This is due to a combination of factors, including the limited

expectation for student technology use at the school level, teacher apprehensions based on a lackof comfort and proficiency with technology tools, and the districts instructional expectation thatvery strongly emphasizes direct instruction above all other instructional models. Directobservation and data collected from the California School Technology Survey andEdTechProfile assessment indicate the regular use of technology to support daily instruction hasincreased in classrooms.

Facilities. The learning environment has been significantly upgraded in nearly all of the districtsclassrooms, where technologies such as video projectors, interactive whiteboards and documentcameras, are integrated into teachers instruction. Teachers who use these tools are creatingrigorous, engaging, interactive lessons that support the adopted curriculum.

A side benefit to this has been the development of collaborative relationships among theteachers, not only within schools, but increasingly between teachers at different schools. During2007-08 the district implementedMyOMSD as a web-accessible document library, includingboth professional materials and resources provided by textbook publishers. Hundreds of districtusers download content each month fromMyOMSD, with usage heavily skewed towardelementary curriculum materials. MyOMSD currently houses over 12,000 prebuilt lessonsaligned to state content standards, most of which were created by OMSD staff. However, manyteachers still express some reluctance to upload lessons, citing concerns related to (a) the


14/64


11

suitability of their work for more general use, and (b) for making a work product that representstheir substantial investment publicly available as a free commodity. The experiences areencouraging teachers to look more seriously for a wider variety of technology based resources tosupport student learning beyond the confines of the textbook covers and the school walls. Onesuch resource adopted by two-thirds ofthe districts schools is the United Streaming videoservice from Discovery Learning that enables teachers integrate high quality, curriculum aligned

video segments into their instructional delivery.

Focus. Despite these successes, identifying a core body of acceptable, high quality instructionalresources for use in classrooms across the district remains a challenge. Funding is part of theissue, but it certainly is not the whole story. A recent inventory of software and applicationsshowed that the typical PC used by students had more than 25 titles installed with no clear planat the site for using most of these toward reaching specific instructional priorities. Examples ofprograms used to support and enhance teaching and learning include the following:

Basic Productivity Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, Publisher,Outlook)

Assessment Applications

Illuminate and benchmark assessments for reading/language artsand mathused regularly by all teachers

Online Assessment of Reading Skills (OARS) used byprimary teachers

Accelerated Math, Accelerated Readerused by 18 schools

Scholastic Reading Counts, Scholastic Phonics Inventoryusedby most teachers in grades 4-8

Learning Applications Read 180 (all sites), MathKeys, Lexia, Rosetta Stoneused by14 schools

Multimedia Development andPresentation Applications

Pinnacle Studio, Adobe Premiereused by 5 schools

Follow through. One of the big challenges with these and any other resources acquired toimprove student learning is the issue of providing timely and effective support and training (Seesections 4 and 5). Two initiatives have been put into place recently that will help ensuretechnology resources acquired or licensed in the future are of the quality expected to effectivelymeet academic needs and can be reasonably supported.

1. All new hardware and software intended to be used to support instruction are reviewed bythe Instructional Technology Standards Committee and, when deemed necessary, pilotedby one or more schools before it is accepted for broad use. The goal is to expand a list ofstandard resources schools can purchase with the anticipation they are effective, reliableand can be supported by the district. Schools and individual employees can bring theirproposals to the committee with the promise of quick action

2. A dedicated IS Helpdesk Technician is used to provide real-time support when possibleand prioritize all technology incidents and escalate as needed. The full-time HelpdeskTechnician provides a more streamlined approach to addressing support needs and freesup System Support Technicians to be in the field resolving incidents.

3c. Summary of the district curricular goals and academic content standards

The strategic planning process followed by the Ontario-Montclair School District develops theframework through which the district strives to create a learning environment where all students


15/64


12

have the opportunity to achieve and experience success. The goals and objectives provide aroadmap for all the strategies that follow.This technology plan is aligned with the districtsStrategic Plan (http://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/superintendent/Pages/StrategicPlan.aspx), theCalifornia curricular goals and academic content standards for student achievement, and ourLocal Educational Agency (LEA) Plan, created by the district School Leadership Team, whichruns through June 30, 2013. The identified performance goals from these guiding documents are:

a. All students will reach high standards, at a minimum, attaining proficiency or better inreading and mathematics, by 2013-14. (LEA Plan Performance Goals #1)

b. All students will be proficient or advanced on essential California standards for languagearts and math as measured by district and State assessments.(OMSD Strategic Plan)

c. All English Language Learners will demonstrate no less than one level of growthannually in English Language proficiency as measured by district and State assessments.(OMSD Strategic Plan)

d. All limited-English-proficient students will become proficient in English and reach highacademic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language artsand mathematics. (LEA Plan Performance Goals #2)

e. All students will be proficient or advanced on California content standards in science andsocial studies as measured by State assessments. (OMSD Strategic Plan)

f. By 2005-06, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers. (LEA PlanPerformance Goal #3)

g. All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, andconducive to learning. (LEA Plan Performance Goal #4)

h. All students will graduate from high school. (LEA Plan Performance Goal #5)

The goals and objectives listed in the following sections are all directed toward meeting theseoverriding goals. They highlight technology objectives and benchmarks relevant to the district

curriculum and strategic plan goals over the three year life of this plan. The benchmarks relatedto both curriculum and technology will be the focus of the annual review and revision of theplan.

3d. Goals and implementation plan for using technology to improve teaching and

learning by supporting the district curricular goals and academic content

standards

The primary purposes of technology at school should be: (1) to augment the attainment ofessential grade level standards (Reeves, 2002), and (2) to extend students reach beyond minimalproficiencies (Eisenberg, 2005), ensuring access to rigorous academic courses and curricula.

The Ontario-Montclair School District has a comprehensive district curriculum guide(http://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/lss/) based upon California State Standards. The corecurriculum focus areas are English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. Itis expected that students who master the adopted curriculum will meet the California standards.Numerous interventions and measures are taken to assist the students in meeting the standards.Additionally, as a K-8 district, we must maintain articulation with the Chaffey Joint Union HighSchool District to ensure we prepare our students with the foundational knowledge and skillsneeded to pass the California High School Exit Exam and graduate on schedule.
http://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/superintendent/Pages/StrategicPlan.aspxhttp://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/superintendent/Pages/StrategicPlan.aspxhttp://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/superintendent/Pages/StrategicPlan.aspxhttp://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/lss/http://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/lss/http://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/lss/http://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/lss/http://omsd.omsd.k12.ca.us/departments/superintendent/Pages/StrategicPlan.aspx


16/64


13

The district faces formidable challenges as we strive to move all students to attainment of thestandards. In 2000-2001 12 of 29 schools in OMSD did not meet their established growth targets.Accountability standards have been shifted by the Federal NCLB requirements for demonstratingthat students are making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). In 2010 28 of 30 sites reporting didnot meet all Phase I and Phase II AYP criteria.. This pattern places pressure, and a number ofrestrictions, on the districts schools to improve student learning and achievement. Technology

tools infused thoughtfully and judiciously can help the district meet its goals listed above forstudents.

Teachers at all district schools use technology to assess student achievement, using: (a) SantaClara Office of Education (SCOE) tests tracked with the Online Assessment of ReadingAchievement (OARS) in kindergarten classrooms, (b) benchmark tests integrated with OMSDsstudent performance tracking system, (c) Spanish language standardized tests, (d) a formalwriting sample, as well as (e) classroom assessments. Based on teacher observation, softwareprograms such as Read 180, Accelerated Reader, Reading Counts and Accelerated Math havecontributed positively to the improvement of test scores and improved APIs. Recommendationsregarding which software programs are purchased to address student needs are based on analysisof data generated in the curricular areas targeted for improvement, as well as site decisions thatgrow out of individual school-wide plans. State and Federal funds are used to purchasecomputers and software to address the specific, identified learning needs of students. While thisplan does not provide for dramatic purchases of new technologies, it does underscore the need todeliver value from systems already in place through better use, professional development andsupport.

We recognize the urgent priority attending students attainment of essential grade levelstandards. Students use of technology must not be limited to simple skill practice and

assessment activities. Students must be challenged to use critical thinking skills to analyzeinformation independently, solve problems and make informed decisions using appropriatetechnological tools. The identified goals, objectives and benchmarks listed below are intended to

support the districts curriculum goals and academic content standards to improve learning. Inaddition, it aims to move all students toward two important outcomes:

a. owning the learningshifting toward a culture of learning that values the individual as a self-directed agent, and

b. securing both the foundational skills and regular access to technology applications thatsupport the organized data collection, analysis, reporting, and decision making that willaffect them as educated individuals and members of society.

Reaching the desired outcomes will require expanded access to resources and rigorous academiccurriculum through online learning, collaborative projects, distance education or virtual fieldtrips from school, and learning outside the traditional school day. This plan requires a strong

technology infrastructure, broader deployment of hardware and application software, andimproving teachers skills to ensure that our students successfully bridge the divide that has too

often limited economic and political participation by their parents. It underscores the prioritydescribed by Jack Meachamputting teachers time, effort, and creativity:

. . . into promoting the active engagement, thinking, questioning, and learning ofmy students. Once we move beyond a transmission model of teaching and

learning, in which students are passive, to a constructivist model of liberal

education, in which students are actively engaged, curious, reflective, and


17/64


14

thinking critically, the best learning technology becomes the posing of a problem,

issue, or question for the students (Meacham, 2006)

To gain expected proficiency at each grade level, students must have regular access and thecommitment of the teaching community to incorporate technology skills into the overallcurriculum. To help effect this outcome the district expects to purchase mobile sets of

AlphaSmart units for elementary grade students, and laptop carts to ensure that middle schoolstudents have the instructional time and resources needed to reach beyond minimal skills.Following the model used at Tech Six Schools, top level support from Technology SupportProviders and Information Services Systems Support Technicians ensured effective levels oftraining and support services with the expectation that teachers will become more self-sufficientover the subsequent years, and will develop collaborative relationships between schools. Sincethen, the state budget has led to a reduction in personnel leaving only one Technology SupportProvider available to support the curricular side of the technology as a core responsibility.Research-based technology will guide instruction to the critical standards needed at that site.Grant funds and K-12 Vouchers will be targeted to assist them in achieving standards for usingtechnology across all grade levels.

GOAL 3D: Students and teachers will use technology tools to improve achievement.Objective 3D.1: By the end of June 2014, middle school students will use technology to complete a project

during each trimester term in selected core content areas including Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science, &

Social Studies that demonstrates mastery of essential standards.

Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012,50% of middle school students will use technology tools to create products andpresentations that demonstrate mastery of essential standards for at least one core content area.

Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, 75% of middle school students will use technology tools to create products andpresentations that demonstrate mastery of essential standards for at least one core content area during each trimester.

Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, 90% of middle school students will use technology tools to create products andpresentations that demonstrate mastery of essential standards for at least one core content area during each trimester.

Evaluation Instrument(s):

Data To Be Collected & Analysis ProcessSchedule for Collection

and EvaluationPerson(s) Responsible

Analysis of standardized & local assessment results Ongoing District & siteadministrators

Classroom observations, teacher records and studentproducts

Ongoing Teachers, SiteAdministrators,

Analysis of collaborative activity by teachers using theSharePoint collaboration space

Quarterly Tech PlanningCoordinator, ITSCCommittee

EdTechProfileteacher and student evaluations Annual Teachers, TechCoordinator, SiteAdministrators

Objective 3D.2: By the end of June 2014, elementary students will use technology to develop keyboard

familiarity and writing skills.

Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, 20% of elementary grade students will use mobile computing devices todevelop keyboard familiarity and writing skills.






Analysis of standardized & local assessment results Ongoing District & siteadministrators

Classroom observations, teacher records and student Ongoing Teachers, Site


18/64


15

products Administrators

Analysis of collaborative activity by teachers using theSharePoint collaboration space

Quarterly Tech PlanningCoordinator, ITSCCommittee

EdTechProfileteacher and student evaluations Annual Teachers, TechCoordinator, SiteAdministrators

Objective 3D.3:By the end of June 2014, all OMSD teachers will integrate technology into direct instructionto improve student understanding and mastery of essential standards.

Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, 60% of teachers will effectively use two or more available audio/visualizationtools such as presentation software, voice reinforcement systems, simulation software, video streaming resources,online resources that provide models and animations, concept mapping software, to improve direct instruction.

Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, 75% of teachers will effectively use two or more available audio/visualizationtools to improve direct instruction.

Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, 100% of teachers will effectively use two or more available audio/visualizationtools to improve direct instruction.




Classroom observations, feedback from site administrators Quarterly Tech Coordinator, TechPlanning Coordinator,

site administratorsAnnual EdTechProfile data will be analyzed for progress Annually Tech Coordinator, Tech

Planning Coordinator,site administrators

Student achievement data from standardized testing will beanalyzed for impact on student achievement

Annually IS Director, TechPlanning Coordinator,Tech Coordinator

Action Step Completion Date Person Responsible

1. 50% of middle school students in core classes will haveaccess to a laptop computer cart for defined projectseach trimester.

June 2012 Site administrators &Tech Coordinator

2. 60% of middle school students in core classes will haveaccess to a laptop computer cart for defined projects

each trimester.


3. 70% of middle school students in core classes will haveaccess to a laptop computer cart for defined projectseach trimester.


4. Provide ongoing training on the effective use ofpresentation hardware & software to classroomteachers.

Ongoing Tech Coordinator, TechMentors

5. Provide training on effective use of video to increasestudent engagement and understanding for teachers andadministrators

Ongoing Tech Coordinator, TechMentors

6. Model use of presentation, simulation and conceptmapping software in professional development settingsthroughout the district

Each trimester Tech Coordinator, TechMentor, Director II ofPD

7. Use the OMSD SharePoint collaboration space to assistteachers to share effective lessons, presentations andresources

Ongoing Tech PlanningCoordinator, TechCoordinator, TechMentors

8. Middle school students will use standard productivitysoftware to complete project assignments (e.g., MSWord for documents, MS Excel for data analysis andgraphing, MS PowerPoint for presentations)

Each trimester 2012-14 Teachers, SiteAdministrators,TechnologyCoordinator

9. Students and teachers will use streaming video and Each trimester 2012-14 Teachers, Site


19/64


16

other multimedia resources for instruction,development of projects and presentations

Administrators

10. Teachers and students will collaborate on projects usingonline collaboration spaces

Each trimester 2012-2014

Teachers, TechPlanning Coordinator,Tech Mentors

3e. Goals to ensure students will acquire technology and information literacy skills

needed to succeed in the classroom and the workplace.

To gain expected proficiency at each grade level, students must have regular access and thecommitment of the teaching community to incorporate technology skills into the overallcurriculum. Although a technology scope and sequence was developed and included in priorversions of district technology plans, it is evident that schools are not using the guide toimplement sequenced teaching of technology skills or to help integrate technology into studentlessons. Yet in todays world it is essential that all students acquire the technology and thinkingskills necessary to support achievement of the academic standards and ultimately success in adigitally mediated world, an effort that will require a lifetime of learning and the integration ofskills with the core curriculum. To address the current realities of technology, the district will

implement the National Education Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) Profiles as ourguiding scope and sequence for our students (see Appendix E).

The NET-S Profiles provide examples of experiences with technology and digital resourcesthat will engage students in developmentally appropriate activities designed to foster both thetechnological skills and habits of thinking necessary to develop technologically literate, problemsolving citizens. It will be the responsibility of the Technology Support Providers andInstructional Coaches, who will model lessons and provide classroom support, to guide teachersin the ways to integrate those skills and concepts into their teaching. Because we live in aconstantly changing environment in which both technology and student learning needs evolve,the NETS-S Profiles can provide only the base for student learning activities. The activities inwhich students engage to meet the NETS-S standards necessarily will change over time as

technological capabilities and teacher proficiencies and confidence levels expand.

GOAL 3E.1: All OMSD students will show evidence of grade level appropriate technology use in support of

mastering essential standards.

Objective 3E.1: By June 2014 all students will master the grade appropriate skills and habits of thinking

delineated in the Technology Scope and Sequence based on the NETS-S Profiles.

Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, the district will adopt theNETS-S Profilesas the OMSD Technology SkillsScope and Sequence.

Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, teachers in all middle schools will regularly create lessons in which studentsmust utilize grade appropriate technology to accomplish the learning objectives.

Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, all students will use technology in hands-on, standards based learning activitiesto master the grade appropriate technology skills in the revised Technology Scope and Sequence.


Data To Be Collected & Analysis Process

Schedule for Collection

and Evaluation

Person(s) Responsible

NETS-S Profile Checklist June 2012 Tech Coordinator, siteadministrators

Classroom observations, teacher feedback & student worksamples

Ongoing Site administrators,Tech Coordinator, TechMentors

Teacher evaluations of student technology skills(EdTechProfile)

Annually Tech Coordinator, siteadministrators

Student self-evaluation (student EdTechProfile survey or Annually Tech Coordinator, site
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS-S_2007_Student_Profiles.pdfhttp://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS-S_2007_Student_Profiles.pdfhttp://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS-S_2007_Student_Profiles.pdfhttp://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS-S_2007_Student_Profiles.pdf


20/64


17

other instrument to be determined) administrators


1. Adopt NETS-S Profiles as the OMSD TechnologyScope & Sequence

June 2012 Tech Coordinator

2. Provide teacher training on effectively integratingtechnology skills instruction within the core curriculum

June 2013 Tech Coordinator

3. Increase student access to district standard productivityand communication software tools

June 2012/ongoing IS Director, TechCoordinator

4. Embed the use of word processing tools throughout thewriting process

June 2012/ongoing Teachers

5. Embed the use of data collection and analysis tools inmath and science instruction


6. Provide opportunities for students to use multimediatools to communicate understanding of content


GOAL 3E.2: All OMSD students will develop grade appropriate information literacy skills necessary to

master content standards in all cored curricular areas.

Objective 3E.2.1: Students will use technology to access, evaluate, retrieve and organize information from a

variety of sources in a grade appropriate manner.

Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, an Information Literacy Team will locate and acquire or create information

literacy resources and correlate it with the core curriculum for all grade levels.Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, 50% of students will use grade appropriate activities and technology tools toaccess, evaluate, retrieve and organize information from a variety of sources appropriate to specific gradeappropriate learning tasks.

Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, 70% of students will use grade appropriate activities and technology tools toaccess, evaluate, retrieve and organize information from a variety of sources appropriate to specific gradeappropriate learning tasks.




Published OMSD Information Literacy Resource Guide June 2012 Tech Coordinator, ExecDir L&T

Teacher evaluations of student information literacy(EdTechProfile or other instrument to be determined)


Student self-evaluation (student EdTechProfile or otherinstrument to be determined)



1. Provide teachers and library/media aides withinformation literacy connections to content standards

June 2012/ongoing Executive DirectorL&T, TechnologyCoordinator

2. Provide training for teachers and library/media aides onintegrating information literacy into standard basedinstruction

June 2012/ongoing Executive DirectorL&T, TechnologyCoordinator

3. Teachers will use resources provided by theInformation Literacy Team to instruct students onevaluating data sources and the data itself

June 2014 Tech Coordinator, TechMentors

4. Provide students with project-based lessons that include

appropriate practice with collecting, organizing, andanalyzing information, developing communication andcollaboration skills.

June 2013 Tech Coordinator, Tech

Mentors

5. Ensure students properly cite sources when creatingelectronic products and communications

June 2013/ongoing 6-8 Teachers

6. Provide teachers and library/media aides with onlinecopyright and citation resources

June 2012 Tech Coordinator, TechPlanning Coordinator


21/64


18

3f. Goals and implementation plan to ensure students will learn the appropriate

and ethical uses of information technology.

Issues of ethics are commonly raised in elementary school in the context of right and wrong, ofgood and evil in human conduct. As children mature, behavior can be examined in a normativeframe as the choices people make and the values reflected in those choices (Brockett and

Heimstra, 2004).School technology plans are now specifically required to educate pupils and teachers on fivetopics, (1) the appropriate and ethical use of information technology in the classroom, (2)Internet safety, (3) avoiding plagiarism, (4) the significance of a copyright, and (5) theimplications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing [EC 51871.5]. Additionally, onlinesafety is expressly targeted with programs such as OnGuardOnlines NetCetera (2009) program(implemented and evaluated in 3g). Each of these concerns is addressed directly in the Boardsadopted policies and administrative procedures, and reflected in the Acceptable Use Agreementrequired of all staff and students using network resources.

GOAL 3F: Students and teachers will understand and adhere to standards guiding ethical use of information

technology.Objective 3F.1: Use of computers and network technologies will follow the requirements of the adopted

Acceptable Use Agreement.

Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, teachers will receive guidance and copy of the publicationNetceteraChattingwith Kids about Being Online. By June 2012, an Information Literacy Team will locate and acquire or createethical use resources and correlate it with the core curriculum for grades levels 4 through 8.

Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, all schools will develop a school technology plan (integrated into the schoolimprovement plan) that emphasizes the leadership of teachers in guiding students toward ethical uses oftechnology following Netceteras guidelines.

Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, students in grades 4 through 8 will exhibit legal and ethical behaviors whenusing information and technology.




School Improvement Plans Annually Dir II - STEMIncident logs marking AUP infringement Annually IS Director


1. Discuss with employees and students current changes ininformation technologies and the effect those changeshave on the workplace and society

June 2012/ongoing Executive Dir.T&L,Tech PlanningCoordinator, TechCoordinator, siteadministrators, teachers

2. Provide easily accessible, developmentally appropriateresources related to the ethical use of informationtechnology for teachers and parents to use with students

June 2012/ongoing Executive Dir.T&L,Tech PlanningCoordinator,TechnologyCoordinator

3. Provide teachers with the publication Copyright andFair Use Guidelines for Teachers; emphasize

importance of leadership in establishing ethical uses ofinformation technology

June 2012/ongoing Tech PlanningCoordinator, TechCoordinator, TechMentors, sitewebmasters

4. Provide teachers with the publication Netcetera Chatting with Kids about Being Online; emphasizeimportance of leadership in establishing ethical uses ofinformation technology and electronic communication

June 2012/ongoing Tech PlanningCoordinator, TechCoordinator, TechMentors, site


22/64


19

webmasters

5. Teachers will use the resources provided by theInformation Literacy Team to instruct students ingrades 48 on the ethical use of technology.

June 2014 Site administrators,Executive DirT&L,Tech Coordinator

6. Evaluate with students in grades 68 the accuracy,relevance, appropriateness, comprehensiveness, andbias of electronic information sources concerning

public policy issues.

June 2014 Executive Dir.T&L

3g. Goals and implementation plan for Internet safety and online privacy.

The Boards adopted policies and administrative procedures, reflected in the Acceptable Use

Agreement required of all staff and students using network resources, ensure that privacyexpectations are met. Classroom instruction guides children with rules for Internet safety thatinclude avoiding online predators.

GOAL 3G: Students will understand and adhere to standards to ensure Internet safety and online privacy.

Objective 3G.1: All students using computers and network technologies will follow the requirements of the

adopted Acceptable Use Agreement.




Incident logs marking AUP infringement Annually IS Director


1. The district will maintain CIPA compliant filteringsystems to ensure that students do not accessinappropriate matter on the Internet

Annually IS Director

2. Provide teachers and site administrators with easilyaccessible, developmentally appropriate resources toteach students internet safety and proper use of

technology as reflected in the district AUP.

Annually TechnologyCoordinator,Technology Planning

Coordinator3. Teachers use educate students on Internet safety and

online privacy issues using the resources providedAnnually Technology

Coordinator, siteadministrators

4. Students will not use school system equipment orresources to electronically communicate withindividuals for non-instructional purposes. Thisincludes e-mail correspondence, chat rooms,instant/real time messenger services, or any other formof electronic direct communication. Such contacts mayonly be made with the approval and supervision ofschool system personnel and be conducted solely forinstructional purposes


5. Students are prohibited from participating in anyunauthorized access ('hacking') of computer systems orany other unlawful technological activities


6. Students and school system employees are prohibitedfrom the unauthorized electronic disclosure of personalstudent information including name, home address,phone number, or other important personal information


7. Provide training and resources to teachers, instructionalaides and administrators emphasize importance ofleadership in students adherence to ethical uses of

Annually Tech PlanningCoordinator, TechCoordinator, Tech


23/64


20

information technology and electronic communication Mentors, sitewebmasters

8. Design series of trainings focusing on internet safetyincluding the following topics: cyber bullying,protecting online privacy and avoiding online predatorsaddressing current and emerging technologies

Annually Tech Coordinator,Director II - STEM

3h. Goals and implementation plan for programs and methods of utilizingtechnology ensuring equitable access to all students.

As with many school districts in California, the economic status of the Ontario-Montclair SchoolDistricts families varies significantly, but is weighted heavily toward the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, with 80 percent of enrolled students eligible for participation in the FederalSchool Lunch Program. As a result, access to computer technology outside the school is oftenvery limited and students are dependent upon school and community-based resources for theiraccess to technologies students in many communities can find in every home. This places theonus on schools to provide access to our students both during and outside the school day, as wellas to work with the communities of Ontario and Montclair to help provide greater access tocomputer technologies for students and their families in community facilities. The focus onmiddle school students is a starting point. It will bring about a consistency through hardware andsoftware acquisitions for classrooms, labs and library/media centers, and professionaldevelopment for teachers on how and why to integrate technology into standards based lessonsfor all core subjects to increase student learning and mastery. All students, including specialneeds, English language learners, and/or other designated students will have equal access to thetechnologies available to others at their school sites. District programs and activities shall befree from discrimination, including harassment, with respect to ethnic group, religion, gender,color, race, national origin and physical or mental disability.

3i. Plan to utilize technology to make student record keeping and assessment more

efficient and supportive of teachers efforts to meet individual student

academic needs.

The district has installed and supports multiple systems to ensure that teachers maintain and reviewindividual student records.

1. During 2006-07 the district deployed a CALPADS-compliant, secure, district-wideintegrated student data system. Migration of records from the earlier STUDENT/3000system to the new Zangle suite was completed, and training provided to ensure that sitestaff could effectively maintain core records related to enrollment, attendance, specialneeds, participation in extended learning/intersession programs, discipline, and historicperformance on state tests. During 2008-09 middle school teachers volunteered to pilot

the Gradebook application to simplify marks reporting and provide parents with web-based views of their childs attendance, homework and class assignments, and progressthroughout the instructional term.

2. The district will implementIlluminate for benchmark testing and data analyses inreading/language arts and math at grades kindergarten through eight to replaceDataDirector. Both provide extensive reporting features, permitting teachers to evaluate


24/64


21

achievement patterns for individuals and sub-groups across multiple achievementmeasures and academic years.

TheIlluminate software includes data warehouse capabilities, linked to the Zangle studentsystem records as its primary source of student information. The data warehouse providescentralized reporting and analysis of achievement across the district using teacher created

assessment, CST and benchmark data.

Benchmark Assessments are administered every six weeks. The results are uploaded toIlluminate for individual teacher review. Teachers collaborate in grade level and departmentteams to analyze the Benchmark Assessment results. During the Structured Teacher PlanningTime (STPT) Benchmark Assessment results are used to analyze the strength of the instructionalprogram. This is done by usingIlluminate reports that disaggregate the results by standard. Thisprocess informs teachers regarding the effectiveness of their lessons on specific standards.Teachers whose classes demonstrated exceptional performance on identified standards shareeffective strategies with their colleagues. Teachers also collaborate aroundIlluminate reports thatdrill down to the student level. This allows them not only to see who has achieved proficiencyoverall and on specific standards but also which students are showing growth. Error analysisstrategies are discussed so that teachers can re-teach on weak standards either to the whole classor small groups. Finally, teachers analyzeIlluminate reports to prepare for the next BenchmarkAssessment. They look at reports from the previous year to focus in on which standards studentstypically struggle with. Thus, teachers collaborate around the use ofIlluminate reports forstandards-based and students-based analysis in both review and preview mode.

GOAL 3I:OMSD will implement an integrated data collection and record keeping systemso teachers can better monitor student progress and inform instructionObjective 3I.1:All teachers and administrators will access integrated online record and data resources to

record and monitor student progress, and inform and modify instruction to address student needs.Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, all teachers and administrators will have been trained on the use of theIlluminate student performance tracking system.

Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, all teachers and administrators will participate in ongoing training on analysisand use of data to drive classroom instruction and improve student achievement.

Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, all teachers have access to online data resources integrated through Zangle andIlluminate to report and communicate student achievement data to parents.




Director II, Standards & Assessment will monitorimplementation and collect feedback from principals andusers.

Ongoing Director II - S&A

Feedback on training and usage through SharePoint surveys Ongoing Director II - S&A,

Executive Director,Learning & Teaching


1. Train users on job appropriate modules of Illuminate Ongoing Illuminate staff,Director II - S&A, TOA

2. Complete installation and update configuration ofIlluminate

August 2011 Illuminate staff,

3. Train teachers to access Zangle and assessment databases using Illuminate

June 2012 Illuminate staff,Director II - S&A, TOA


25/64


22

4. Provide ongoing teacher and administrator training onusing online assessment data to inform instruction

Ongoing Illuminate staff,Director II - S&A, TOA

5. Teachers collaborate with grade-level/department teamto analyze benchmark data from Illuminate to buildlessons targeting the necessary standards.

Ongoing Site administrators,Director II - S&A, TOA

3j. Utilizing technology to improve two-way communication between home and

school.

The district and schools will use technology to improve two-way communication between homeand school. Site and department web portals built with Microsoft SharePoint software willexpand public access to informational content about District services to the community includingcalendared events and news, classroom assignments and options for teacher contact. An updatedtelephone and voicemail system, integrated with email will provide a variety of contact optionsfor parents and teachers once it is installed. The Zangle student information system also providesschools and teachers the capability to post attendance for all grade levels and classroomassignments and achievement data for middle school grade levels in a secure environmentaccessible to parents/guardians.

Zangle securely synchronizes students parent contact information with BlackBoard Connect.BlackBoard Connect will continue to be used by schools to send home important informationregarding school activities, reminders and emergency and outreach messages as necessary toensure parents have notification of activities or events outside of the normal instructional type.Additionally, BlackBoard Connect will continue to be used for automated attendance callingwith the goal of resolving more absences and increasing student attendance.

New software-as-a-service offerings from companies such as Gaggle offer hosted solutionsallowing teachers to have logged, moderated and filtered blogging, chat and secure messagingbetween students and teachers as well as parents and teachers that can further improve the bi-directional school-home communication.

GOAL 3J: Use technology to improve two-way communication between home and school.Objective 3J.1: By June 2014, parents will have access to a variety of student information online to help supporttheir involvement in their childrens education.

Year 1 Benchmark: By June 2012, OMSD will install an updated voicemail system at the district level integratedwith e-mail, which will provide a variety of contact options for parents and district staff.

Year 2 Benchmark: By June 2013, 50% of teachers will have class SharePoint web pages through which they cancommunicate with parents.

Year 3 Benchmark: By June 2014, 25% of teachers will have an online presence with the ability to communicatewith parents securely and safely electronically via their webpage.




IS Director will monitor implementation and collectfeedback from principals

Ongoing IS Director

Collect usage data for Zangle and SharePoint to determinethe level of teacher and parent use of the systems

Annually IS Director, TechPlanning Coordinator

Report progress to the Board of Trustees annually Annually IS Director


1. Train district office users to use the newphone/voicemail system

June 2012 IS Director

2. Upgrade Microsoft Exchange Server, providingIntegrated Messaging for voice, email, and faxes.

June 2012/onoging IS Director, NetworkEngineer


26/64


23

3. Train teachers to create class SharePoint web pages topost assignments, class news and resources

Ongoing Tech PlanningCoordinator, TechMentors, Webmaster

4. Create and provide online guides for SharePoint portal Ongoing Tech PlanningCoordinator, TechMentors, Webmaster

5. Develop a process to provide parents and teachers secure

access to online collaboration systems

June 2013 IS Director, Network

Administrator, DataWarehouse Manager

6. Provide teacher training on use of the community-facingcollaboration system

ongoing IS Director, TechPlanning Coordinator,Webmaster

3k. Process to Monitor Whether the Strategies and Methodologies Utilizing

Technology are Being Implemented According to the Benchmarks and

Timeline.

The districts Instructional Technology Standards Committee, made up of representatives from

schools, Learning Support Services, Information Services, Staff Development, Business and

Operations, will be the forum for an annual review of the goals and objectives contained in the plan.The ITSC meets monthly to review data for all aspects of the plan, and will prepare an annualsummary review of progress. All data and reports presented to the ITSC will be compiled by arepresentative subcommittee for presentation to the Cabinet and the Board of Trustees annually.

Evaluations and other measurements described in the previous Goal and Objective charts (Sections3d-3i) will be the responsibility of the individuals identified in the charts as the Person(s)Responsible.

4. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Todays youth are exposed to a model of teaching and learning that is largely devoid of thesame technologies they use at home. (Jim Bosco, professor emeritus, Western MichiganUniversity.)

Technology knowledge and skill levels have a direct impact on the ability of teachers andadministrators to address the learning needs of todays students. To create a rich, technologicallyintegrated, standards-based learning environment, staff members must be well versed in bestpractices and competent, confident technology users. A well designed and implementedprofessional development program assists staff members to use appropriate technology tofacilitate the teaching and learning process. A broad-based program integrating technology withcurriculum and instructional strategies will be implemented to improve student achievement andthe needs of the teachers, administrators and classified staff identified through needs assessmentand established curriculum priorities.

The technology skills levels and professional development needs of district staff members aremeasured various ways. Teacher and administrator technology skills levels and professionaldevelopment needs were frequently surveyed when funding allowed using a variety ofinstruments including the EdTechProfile (the June 2006 summary table is shown below) andlocal surveys of administrators, teachers and classified staff members.


27/64


24

4a. Summary of teachers and administrators current technology skills and needs

for professional development.

The technology skills and integration levels, and subsequent professional development needs, ofteachers and administrators is measured using the EdTechProfile. (See charts below)

1 General computer knowledge and skills

2 Internet skills

3 E-mail skills

4 Word processing skills5 Presentation software skills

6 Spreadsheet software skills

7 Database software skills

Elementary

Middle School


28/64


25

Administrators

The following conclusions can be drawn from the EdTechProfile Assessment Survey and othersurvey data:

The levels and types of technology use vary across the district and depend to a greatextent on the individual users access to and personal proficiency with both hardware andapplications.

All staff members report the highest degree of personal proficiency in word processing,while revealing varying levels of knowledge and effectiveness in general computerknowledge and skills, including Internet and e-mail use. They report the least confidencein their ability to analyze and monitor student achievement data, use technology toenhance learning and select instructional technology resources.

The data clearly show that staff members cover the range of proficiency levels from lowintroductory levels to proficient use, and indicate the need for multiple professionalgrowth opportunities to address learners at all levels.

Individual understanding of the power and effectiveness of various technologies asinstructional tools impacts the frequency and type of use.

Teachers express a desire to learn to use the newer technology tools such as interactivepresentation tools, streaming video, digital imaging and publishing, along with basicapplications.

Teachers have requested modeling and coaching in their classrooms to help them learnhow to effectively integrate technology into their instructional practices.

Administrators voice a need to recognize best practices for the integratio

technology master plan 2011-2014

Documents