Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-4906
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
Telephone: (781) 338-3000
July 30, 2015
Dear Superintendent or Educational Technology Director:
Thank you for your participation in the Digital Connections Partnership Schools Grant program. The
purpose of this communication is twofold:

Update you on the status of future funding for the program; our efforts to offer a bundled solution
for professional development, devices, and managed services; and new opportunities presented by
E-rate.

Provide your district’s scores based on its responses to the twelve questions in the proposal, your
district’s overall score, how your district scored relative to the other districts in your community
category (urban, rural, suburban), and detailed feedback for improving those areas where your
district did not receive full credit.
If your district was not awarded funding in Round 1, we are providing this information to you now to give
you time to reflect on last year’s application and to start a conversation with your schools about how to
strengthen the application so that it can be funded if additional funds are released.
If your district was awarded funding in Round 1, we hope that you will find this feedback helpful in
ensuring your projects achieve the outcomes you intend, maximize resources, and are sustainable.
Funding status
Of the $38 million in state bond appropriated by the legislature, $5 million was authorized for use in the
first phase of the program by the Governor’s Office for projects in FY2015-16.
The response we received to the initial request for proposals was very strong, despite a short application
timeframe, and is a persuasive indicator of the willingness of cities and towns like yours to commit local
matching funds. As you may know, at present the demand surpasses our ability to match this commitment
with state funds.

The $5 million authorized for use in the first phase of the program lets us fund projects that will
positively impact 24,981 students and 1,865 educators in 47 schools. Communities will match
this investment with approximately $3.59 million from local, private, and federal funding
streams.

To meet the full initial demand, an additional $11.79 million in state bond funds would be
required. That level of funding would benefit an additional 108,358 students and 7,835 educators
in 200 schools, and leverage approximately $13.77 million in matching funds.

We expect additional demand to be demonstrated in future application rounds. A number of
schools that did not apply in Round 1, for various reasons, have indicated significant interest and
informed us of their intent to apply in a future round.
If additional funds are released by the Governor’s office, we anticipate that the process would begin in
fall 2015 and culminate with the submission of a consolidated E-rate application for the funded districts to
the Universal Service Administrative Company in late winter 2016. Projects would then begin in July for
what would be an FY17 (2016-17) initiative. Please note that this timeline is extremely tentative and there
is no guarantee that additional funds will be released.
All semifinalists and candidates that did not receive funding in the first round will be asked to strengthen
their applications to address those areas in which they did not receive a full score and submit them for rescoring. This would also be the time to include any new developments in your district and its schools with
regard to infrastructure and digital learning initiatives.
Bundled solution for professional development, devices, and managed services
We are working with the Massachusetts Office of Information Technology (MassIT) and the Operational
Services Division (OSD) to offer all districts the option of securing professional development, leased
devices, and managed services for a single, per pupil cost from state-approved vendors. We anticipate
these offerings will include PCs, Chromebooks, and Macs.
While some districts may continue to purchase devices separately, a bundled solution is less expensive
than if those products and services were costed out separately. We know that many districts fund
professional development and IT costs through separate line items and departments. We hope the bundled
solution option will encourage cooperation between those functions, as well as lead to more strategic uses
of funds. More information will be available in the fall of 2015.
E-rate
Last year the FCC made the greatest changes to the E-rate program since its inception in 1998. The FCC’s
“E-rate Modernization Order” set increasing bandwidth to schools and placing Wi-Fi in all schools as
their priorities. They are eliminating or phasing out E-rate funding for services that do not support their
new priorities (e.g., phone, cell phone, web hosting, email, voicemail, etc.).
In the past, only the poorest schools received funding for internal infrastructure such as Wi-Fi; last year,
no schools in Massachusetts received funding for such projects. The FCC is now committed to funding all
schools. Accordingly, the FCC increased the E-rate fund by over 60 percent to $3.9 billion per year and
committed $2 billion from funds unspent in previous years to make sure there is enough money for all
schools to realize their priorities.
For many Massachusetts districts, this is the first time they will be able to get E-rate funds for broadband
and Wi-Fi network infrastructure. Discounts for the majority of Massachusetts districts will range
between 40 percent and 85 percent – or more. At present, the FCC has only stated that funding will be
available for all schools the next four federal funding years – state fiscal years 2017, 2018, 2019, and
2020. Beginning this summer and through the fall, we will be using multiple channels (conference
presentations, the Commissioner’s weekly update, Twitter, etc.) to increase awareness of E-rate as a
funding stream for school infrastructure projects and maximize these funds while they are available.
In many communities, E-rate funding for services other than broadband or Wi-Fi are returned to the
general municipal fund. To maximize the opportunities presented by this new E-rate funding stream, we
will be encouraging all districts and their respective municipal governments to reserve reimbursements
received through E-rate for broadband and Wi-Fi projects for purposes related to educational technology.
Future recipients of state funds under this grant program will be required to do so. Do not hesitate to
contact us at odl@doe.mass.edu if you have questions about E-rate.
Scoring and detailed feedback
On the pages that follow, please find your district’s aggregated scores for the twelve questions in the
proposal, overall score, and how your district scored relative to the other districts in your community
category. Each question is accompanied by detailed feedback for strengthening your application in those
areas where your district did not receive a full score. The feedback is based on a detailed analysis of the
narrative responses for all districts over the last several months.
Applications with a score of zero
Prior to scoring an application, reviewers were first asked to determine if the application describes the
implementation of a 1:1 program in at least one subject or one grade in each funded school. If after
seeking consultation with other reviewers a determination could not be made whether the applicant met
this condition, the application received a zero [“0 (no 1:1)”] and the individual criteria were not scored.
Applicants did not have to make a commitment to purchasing more devices through this program if there
were already a sufficient number of devices in the school to go 1:1 in at least one subject or one grade in
each funded school.
Note that districts were not required to commit to implementing a school-wide 1:1 program in any school.
In addition to the fiscal constraints presented by purchasing hundreds if not thousands of devices for
schools, we recognize not all educators may be ready to make the instructional shifts that a 1:1 program
requires, nor might the school have the capacity to provide adequate professional development to a large
number of educators and/or provide technical support to a significant number of student and adult users of
the devices. In many cases, a school may want to implement a 1:1 program with selected “early adopters”
who already have well-articulated goals for the program. The expectation would be that, based on a
comprehensive evaluation over time, the school may elect to expand the program to additional grade
levels and/or subjects.
Questions?
Do not hesitate to contact us at odl@doe.mass.edu if you have any questions, concerns, or feedback for
the Department or MassIT.
Summary information
District name:
Your district’s community category:
Number of applicants in your category:
Your rank among applications in your category:
Status:
Note: All districts that were members of a consortium received the same score.
Feedback
Question
1. Is this project part of an
Points
This question was scored on a “yes” or “no” basis (Yes = 5 points; No = 0 points). Your district’s
score can be improved if the proposed school infrastructure project is included as part of a larger
project to bring increased broadband and/or Wi-Fi to the larger community, such as libraries,
municipal buildings, and/or community centers, or a plan to improve roads or highways.
5
This question was scored on a “yes” or “no” basis (Yes = 5 points; No = 0 points) and cannot be rescored unless the district can provide objective, third party data demonstrating that the majority of the
public buildings in the community lack access to high speed broadband.
5
This question was scored on a “yes” or “no” basis (Yes = 5 points; No = 0 points) and cannot be
changed unless the district can provide objective, third party data demonstrating that high speed
broadband is not available to the majority of the households in the community.
5
This question was scored on a “yes” or “no” basis (Yes = 5 points; No = 0 points) and cannot be
changed unless the district can provide objective, third party data demonstrating that high speed
broadband is unaffordable to the majority of the households in the community.
5
This question was scored on a “yes” or “no” basis (Yes = 5 points; No = 0 points). Districts can earn
public buildings lack
access to high speed
broadband?
3. Is high speed broadband
unavailable to the
majority of the
households in the
community?
4. Is high speed broadband
unaffordable to the
majority of the
households in the
community?
5. Will the chief
Detailed feedback
5
integrated plan
impacting other sectors
of the community?
2. Do the majority of the
Your score
Question
Points
educational technology
administrator pursue
Certified Educational
Technology Leader
(CETL) certification?
6. Does the applicant plan
instructional and
learning challenges
facing this school that a
shift toward an
increased use of digital
learning might help
solve?
Detailed feedback
full credit by signing an assurance that the educational technology administrator pursues a Certified
Educational Technology Leader (CETL) certification. CETL certification demonstrates that the holder
possesses the knowledge and skills to manage both the programmatic and the infrastructure side of the
learning environment.
5
This question was scored on a “yes” or “no” basis (Yes = 5 points; No = 0 points). Semifinalists and
candidates who apply for funding in Round 2 of this program, if additional funds are released, will be
required to have MassIT file the E-rate application (for broadband and Wi-Fi only) as a part of a state
consortium.
20
Higher scores will be given to applications that articulate
to request that MassIT
file its E-rate
application as a part of a
state consortium?
7. What are the specific
Your score






a need for greater personalization of the student learning experience (and provided clear
descriptions and examples of those experiences);
the need to appropriately motivate and engage students (describing motivating and engaging
learning activities that a shift toward an increased use of digital learning could address that
would otherwise be challenging in a traditional classroom setting);
learning activities that promote deep learning (and define “deep learning” in that context);
the need for students to take greater ownership over the learning process (while describing
how educators would continue to support that learning);
a need for learning opportunities that more closely resemble roles and tasks in the twenty-first
century workplace, and that could not be readily replicated in the existing environment; and
a need for and description of learning experiences that give students greater control over the
time, place, and pace of their learning.
Reviewers will also look for challenges that can be addressed by increased leveraging of open
educational resources and by providing students opportunities to safely and productively engage with
peers and others.
Regarding instructional challenges, higher scores will be given to applications that describe




creative and purposeful use of technology by teachers;
instruction that promotes greater problem-solving opportunities for students (and provides
examples of those opportunities);
the use of data (quantitative and qualitative) to understand individual skills, gaps, strengths,
weaknesses, interests, and aspirations of each student, and how that information would be
used to personalize learning experiences; and
a need for more valid, reliable, and timely classroom-based assessments, projects, and/or
Question
Points
Your score
Detailed feedback
assignments.
Applications in Round 1 received a lower score if they




8. How will the program
20
integrate online and
face-to-face learning?
provided no response or “N/A” to the question;
emphasized readiness for online testing at the expense of digital learning;
expressed a need solely for wireless access; or
provided responses that were vague or nonspecific (e.g., technology to document and share
work; for professional development; to close the achievement gap; to upgrade the school’s
servers; collect data for benchmark assessments; etc.).
Higher scores will be given to applications that clearly describe and provide specific examples of how
technology will




enable students to communicate with teachers and peers outside the classroom or school day;
enable students to engage in blended or fully online coursework;
give students access to a richer variety of courses than are available in the school; and
enable the development of learning models that reach beyond the school walls and/or change
the school schedule.
Applications in Round 1 received a lower score if they




9. Does the applicant plan
10
to lease devices through
the Learning
Technology Initiative
(LTI) contract?
10. If the applicant intends
to count device
purchases towards the
provided no response or “N/A” to the question;
emphasized equipment updates or standardization of DDMs;
gave the names of software already in use in the district without clear descriptions of teaching
and learning experiences (e.g., “We use Edmodo”; “We use Google Apps for Education”;
“We use Virtual High School”; etc.); or
provided responses that were vague or nonspecific (e.g., “Students will have the opportunity
for global collaboration and shared learning experiences”; “We already do this training in our
district”; “The program will be used as for assessment and practice”; “Teachers will decide
how to do this in their classrooms”; etc.).
As stated previously, we are working with MassIT and OSD to offer all districts the option of securing
professional development, leased devices, and managed services for a single, per pupil cost.
Semifinalists and candidates who apply for funding in Round 2 of this program, if additional funds are
released, will receive full credit for this question if they plan to take advantage of the bundled solution
if/when it becomes available.
20
Higher scores will be given to applications that clearly

identify the amount of dollars at play in the current system;
Question
Points
Your score
Detailed feedback



local match, does it
have a workable plan
for incorporating
recurring device costs
into the annual
operating budget?

identify initiatives, programs, and staffing that will change, be replaced, or reallocated;
describe how resources will be leveraged across multiple, yet stable funding streams;
commit to creating a new line item in the district and/or municipal budget for digital learning,
separate from instructional technology; and
incorporate digital learning into the operating budget of the school/municipality rather than as
a capital expense.
Applications in Round 1 received a lower score if they



11. Does the applicant have
20
a robust plan for the
initial training and
ongoing technical
support for educators
and administrators (for
all of the schools
participating in the
program)?
provided no response or “N/A” to the question;
indicated that they will not purchase devices with the local match without an adequate
explanation for or description of the school’s existing capacity to implement a 1:1 program in
at least a subject or grade level in the school; or
provided responses that were vague or nonspecific (e.g., “Our district has a technology plan
that incorporates a device replacement cycle”; “We have a leased equipment line in our
current and future budgets”; “Technology is included in the annual operating budget”; “We
will secure local funding from our school committee or donors”; “Technology is accounted
for in our capital funding”).
Higher scores will be given to responses that are clear, detailed, and specific, and that







utilize school-based technical support provided by trained staff;
leverage technical support/repair/depot services through managed services contracts;
thoughtfully incorporate (but do not rely upon) student volunteers to provide repairs and/or
technical support;
purchase surplus equipment so that broken devices can be swapped out;
provide help desks and other forms of putting a person in touch with another person to
resolve a problem or provide advice;
provide automated information systems, such as searchable frequently-asked-question (FAQ)
databases or newsletters; and
provide technology integration support for administrative applications.
The review team noted that some applications provided a description of professional development,
which should be provided in the response to question #12.
12. Does the applicant have
a robust plan for
providing professional
learning experiences,
20
The term “professional learning” includes activities that


are informed by the results of a readiness survey;
give teachers the ability to tailor the professional learning they receive by selecting from a
range of available topics;
Question
Points
Your score
Detailed feedback

which is aligned to the
state PD standards (for
all of the schools
participating in the
program)?




advance the knowledge and skills of teachers to use eligible technology, including blended
learning strategies, to personalize learning in the curricula and academic subjects in which the
teachers teach;
are designed to give teachers of students with disabilities, English language learners and other
special populations the knowledge and skills to provide instruction and appropriate language
and academic support services to those students using eligible technology;
are designed to give all teachers an understanding of assistive technologies and accessibility
requirements for students with disabilities and/or accommodations;
address classroom management skills; and
promote teacher collaboration; and provide teachers with the opportunity to work one-on-one
with a qualified expert.
The review team noted that some applications provided a description of technical support, which
should be provided in the response to question #11.
Higher scores will be given to responses that included the following:
Overall Score:
160

Provide the opportunity for school and district leaders and teachers to take a readiness survey
that provides a baseline level of school and district leader readiness to implement, support,
and evaluate school- and district-wide approaches for using eligible technology to inform
instruction, support teacher collaboration, and personalize learning; provides a baseline level
of teacher readiness to use eligible technology, including blended learning strategies, to
personalize learning; and informs the selection of subsequent professional learning
opportunities for school and district leaders and teachers.

Provide training for school and district leaders to specify intended outcomes for the 1:1
initiative that includes a logic model or theory of action to guide subsequent action and
evaluation of the initiative; meaningful measures of implementation and change in the
knowledge, skills, and behaviors of students and teachers engaged in the initiative; action
plans to implement strategies for engaging all teachers in ongoing and sustained professional
learning through the lifetime of the purchase or lease agreement; and not be solely consistent
of one-day or short-term workshops or conferences and/or training in the operation of
available technology.
Totals may vary due to rounding