Education Technology Plan Review System
Contact Information
County Code : 3810389
School Code : N.A.
LEA Name: San Francisco County Office of Education
Salutation:*
Mr.
First Name:*
Matthew
Last Name:*
Kinzie
Job Title:*
Chief Technology Officer
Address:*
601 McAllister Street
City:*
San Francisco
Zip Code:*
94102-3111
Telephone:*
415-241-6169
Fax:
415-202-0758
E-Mail:*
KinzieM@.sfusd.edu
Please provide backup contact information.
1st Backup Name:
Dr. John Rubio
1st Backup E-Mail:
rubioj@sfusd.edu
2nd Backup Name:
Daisy Htun
2nd Backup E-Mail:
htund@sfusd.edu
Education Technology Plan Review System
Contact Information
District Code : 3868478
School Code : N.A.
LEA Name: San Francisco Unified School District
Salutation:*
Mr.
First Name:*
Matthew
Last Name:*
Kinzie
Job Title:*
Chief Technology Officer
Address:*
601 McAllister Street
City:*
San Francisco
Zip Code:*
94102-3111
Telephone:*
415-241-6169
Fax:
415-202-0758
E-Mail:*
KinzieM@.sfusd.edu
Please provide backup contact information.
1st Backup Name:
Dr. John Rubio
1st Backup E-Mail:
rubioj@sfusd.edu
2nd Backup Name:
Daisy Htun
2nd Backup E-Mail:
htund@sfusd.edu
San Francisco Unified School District
and
San Francisco County Office of Education
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
Access and Equity
Student Achievement
Accountability.
2012 - 2015
Draft
Board of Education
Superintendent
Mr. Norman Yee, President
Ms. Rachel Norton, Vice-President
Ms. Sandra Fewer
Ms. Kim-Shree Maufas
Ms. Hydra Mendoza
Dr. Carlos Garcia
Dr. Emily M. Murase
Ms. Jill Wynns
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
Table of Contents
Technology Plan Components
Page
Components 1 & 2 ± Plan Duration and Stakeholders
Introduction
Purpose of the Master Instructional Technology Plan
1, Duration of the Plan
Planning Process
2. Stakeholders
3
3
3
3
4
4
Component 3 ± Curriculum
3A. Student and Teacher Access to Technology
3B. Current Use of Technology
3C. 'LVWULFW¶V&XUULFXODU*RDOV6XSSRUWHGE\WKH7HFKQRORJ\3ODQ
Curriculum Goals, Objectives, Benchmarks, Implementation Plan and Timeline
3D. Technology to Improve Teaching and Learning
3E. Technological and Information Literacy Skills
3F. Appropriate and Ethical Use of Information Technology
3G. Internet Safety
3H. Equitable Technology Access for All Students
3I. Student Record Keeping and Assessment
3J. Utilization of Technology to Improve Two-Way Communication between Home
and School
3K. Monitoring and Evaluation
5
11
18
22
23
24
25
26
28
30
31
Component 4 ± Professional Development
4A. Current Technology Proficiency and Integration Skills and Professional Development Needs
4B. Professional Development Goals, Objectives, Benchmarks, Implementation Plan and
Timeline
4B1. Staff Technology Proficiency
st
4B2. Aligning Technology with the 21 Century Curriculum Initiative
4B3. Developing Technology and Information Literacy, Ethical and Safe Use of
Technology Skills
4B4. Use of Data to Improve Instruction
4B5. Use of Technology to Improve Two-Way Home-School Communications
4C. Monitoring and Evaluation
32
32
Component 5 ± Infrastructure, Hardware, Software and Technical Support
5A. Existing Hardware, Internet Access, Electronic Resources and Technical Support
5B. Hardware, Internet Access, Electronic Resources and Technical Support Needed to Support
Curriculum and Professional Development
5C. Infrastructure, Hardware, Electronic Resources and Technical Support Benchmarks and
Timeline
5C1. Hardware Benchmarks and Timeline
5C2. Infrastructure Benchmarks and Timeline
5C2.1. Internet Access
5C2.2. Network
5C3. Electronic Resources Benchmarks and Timeline
47
47
51
40
41
43
44
46
47
55
55
56
56
56
57
1|Page
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
5C3.1. Data Director
5C3.2. Student Data Redesign Project
5C3.3. Program management Systems
5C4.Technical Support Benchmarks
5D. Monitoring and Evaluation
57
57
57
58
58
Component 6 ± Funding and Budget
Introduction
6A. Established and Potential Funding Sources and Cost Savings
6B. Estimated Implementation Costs
Annual Budget Projections
x 2012-2013
x 2013-2014
x 2014-2015
6C. Computer Replacement and Obsolescence Policies
6D. Monitoring Process for Funding and Budget
59
59
60
64
Component 7 ± Monitoring and Evaluation
7A. 3URFHVVIRU(YDOXDWLQJRI7HFKQRORJ\3ODQ¶V2YHUDOO3URJUHVVDQG,PSDFWRQTeaching and
Learning
7B. Schedule for Evaluating the Effect of Plan Implementation
7C. Process and Frequency of Communicating Results to Stakeholders
70
70
Component 8 ± Collaborative Strategies for Adult Literacy
72
Component 9 ± Effective Researched-Based Methods, Strategies and Criteria
9A. Relevant Research to Support Curriculum and Professional Development
9B.Technology to Extend Distance Learning Opportunities
73
73
77
Appendix
A. Stakeholders
78
65
66
67
69
69
71
72
2|Page
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
INTRODUCTION
San Francisco is unique in that it is both the City and County of San Francisco. The established
governing body, the Board of Education, is responsible for administering both the District and the San
Francisco County Office of Education. The Master Plan for Instructional Technology 2012-2015
addresses both the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of
Education (SFCOE).
San Francisco Unified School District: Founded in 1851, San Francisco Unified School District
educates approximately 55,000 of San Francisco's pre-K, elementary, middle and high school
students at thirty early education centers, 103 K-12 schools and eleven charter schools.
San Francisco County Office of Education: The COE provides services to 710 students and
operates four school programs that are located at eight county/court schools: Special Education,
Juvenile Court, Alternative Opportunity and County Community School.
Purpose of the Master Plan: San Francisco Unified School District Master Plan for Instructional
Technology ³7HFKQRORJ\3ODQ´) provides a district-wide vision for how technology will be embedded
into the 'LVWULFW¶VStrategic Plan³Beyond the Talk.´ Simply put, the Master Plan is a strategic
document 1 that provides a vision for instructional technology in the schools and a roadmap for
moving the District and the COE towards that vision over the next three years.
In addition to creating a common vision to guide the use of resources, the Master Plan for
Instructional Technology fulfills federal and state requirements for a state-approved three year
technology plan. The Technology Plan is aligned with the California Department of Education
³((777HFKQRORJ\3ODQ5XEULF´ and meets the requirements of the federal e-rate program.
COMPONENT 1 ± PLAN DURATION CRITERION
(1. 7KHSODQVKRXOGJXLGHWKHGLVWULFW¶VXVHRIHGXFDWLRQWHFKQRORJ\IRUWKHQH[WWKUHHWRILYH
years.)
Plan Duration: The Master Plan is a three-year strategic plan for the period July 1, 2012 through
June 30, 2015.
1
N.B.: Based on this Master Plan for Instructional Technology, the district will prepare an annual implementation plan and
budget that reflects progress over the previous year and available resources. While the plan proposes an annual timeline for
implementatLRQWKHUHIHUHQFHVWR³\HDUV´VKRXOGEHLQWHUSUHWHGDV³SKDVHV´JLYHQWKHXQFHUWDLQW\RIIXQGLQJIRU.-12
education in general and for technology in particular. Strategies outlined for year one, for example, should occur before those
identified for years two and three.
3|Page
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
COMPONENT 2 ± STAKEHOLDERS CRITERION
(2. Description of how a variety of stakeholders from within the school district and the
community at large participated in the planning process.)
Planning Process ± The District Strategic Plan: To create the district¶V6WUDWHJLF3ODQ
³Beyond the Talk, 7DNLQJ$FWLRQWR(GXFDWH(YHU\&KLOG1RZ´ (2008) the district engaged
school reform leaders and held a series of community conversations with small groups that
involved over one thousand people to identify not just the challenges in education but to get at
the root causes of the deep disparities in student achievement in SFUSD.
³The San Francisco Unified School District sees the achievement gap as the greatest
social justice/civil rights issue facing our country today; there cannot be justice for all
ZLWKRXWFORVLQJWKLVJDS´ (Carlos Garcia, Superintendent, 2009)
The five year Strategic Plan, and the recent updates to that document, ³%H\RQGWKH7DON
6WUDWHJLF,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ODQ´and the ³6FKRRO3ODQQLQJ6XPPLW5HSRUW)HEUXDU\´ grew
out of this research and focuses all resources on achievement for all students. This Master Plan for
Instructional Technology is driven by the Strategic Plan and is informed by the same ongoing
research, school community input and best practices that gave shape to the Strategic Plan.
Planning Process ± Master Plan for Instructional Technology:
Needs Assessment: 7KH&RPPLWWHH¶VQHHGVDVVHVVPHQWLQFOXGHGWKHIROORZLQJUHVHDUFKDQG
input from stakeholders:
x The San Francisco Unified School District 6WUDWHJLF3ODQ³Beyond the Talk (2008)´
x ³Beyond the Talk, Version 2, Implementation Update´0)
x ³6FKRRO3ODQQLQJ6XPPLW5HSRUW´ February 11, 2012
x Progress reports on the implementation of the Strategic Plan
x The San Francisco Unified School District LEA Program Improvement Plan (2011)
x The San Francisco County Office of Education LEA Plan Addendum, 2011-2012
x 'DWDJHQHUDWHGE\WKHGLVWULFW¶VILQDQFLDOV\VWHPVData Director data system, and School
Loop (a teacher, student and parent portal).
x Interviews with Board of Education members, district and site leadership and union
representatives
x Planning meetings with a cadre of classroom and technology/library media teachers and
the Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG)
x Participation in PHHWLQJVRIWKH6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V&DELQHW$FDGHPLFDQG3URIHVVLRQDO
Development Leadership and principals.
x The District Teacher Technology Survey completed by 2565 of 3219 teachers in the
District and COE January 2012. 2
x Research of the literature on best practices
Stakeholder Criterion: The Technology Plan for 2012-2015 is essentially an extension of the
2009-2012 Technology Plan. During 2008-09 there was extensive outreach to the schools and
2
N.B. The number of teachers completing the survey increased from 2565 to 2633 after the data was analyzed for this Plan. 2900 pk-12
WHDFKHUVZKRVHUYHSULPDULO\DV³FODVVURRP´WHDFKHUVZHUHWDUJHWHGIRUVXUYH\FRPSOHWLRQ
4|Page
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
the broader school community that resulted in significant consensus on both the Strategic Plan
and the vision for technology in support of that plan. The emphasis of the planning process in
2012 was to align the Technology Plan as envisioned for 2009-2012 with the district¶VFXUUent
curriculum priorities and the implementation plans for 2012-2015. Therefore, the focus of the
planning was on district leadership, individuals responsible for the current priorities, and the
principals and teachers who are integrating these initiatives into their instructional practices.
Stakeholders Involvement in the Planning Process
Technology Planning Team oversaw the planning process, conducted interviews and
prepared drafts of the Technology Plan.
x
x
x
x
3
Daisy Htun Project Manager, ITD
Matt Kinzie, Chief Information Officer, ITD
4
Dr. John Rubio, Supervisor, Educational Technology, C & I
Kathleen Schuler, Consultant
Technology Planning Committee: The Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG) and a
group of twenty teachers represented their respective schools and programs and met to make
recommendation to the Planning Team and review the draft documents. ITAG will be responsible for
monitoring the implementation of the Technology Plan for 2012-2015.
Interviews: In addition the Planning Committee conducted over 28 interviews with curriculum and
district leadership, attended meetings of administrators
Stakeholder Meetings: The Planning Team participated in the Fall All Administrators meeting
and a meeting of principals. In addition, the team made presentations to the Instructional
/HDGHUVKLS7HDPDQGWKH6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V&DELQHW
Survey: 94% of all PK-12 teachers completed the district Teacher Technology Survey.
Review of Draft Documents: All stakeholders were invited to review and give feedback on the
draft Technology Plan prior to its submission to the Cabinet and the draft Technology Plan was
posted on the district web site for broader community input.
(Please see Appendix A for a complete list of Stakeholders by name and title who were
involved in the planning process.)
COMPONENT 3. CURRICULUM
3A. STUDENT AND TEACHER ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY: (3a. 'HVFULSWLRQRIWHDFKHUV¶
DQG VWXGHQWV¶ FXUUHQW DFFHVV WR WHFKQRORJ\ WRROV ERWK GXULQJ WKH VFKRRO GD\ and outside of
school hours.)
District Teacher Technology Survey: 85% or 2565 5 RIWKHGLVWULFW¶VDQG&2(¶Vclassroom
teachers responded to the District Technology Survey by January 31, 2012. 6 All schools
3
Information Technology Department
Curriculum and Instruction
5
The number of respondents increased from 2565 to 2633 teachers or 87% after the survey data was analyzed for this Plan.
4
5|Page
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
participated, with sixty schools having 100% participation. The lowest participation level was by
Early Education teachers. If only K-12 teachers were counted, participation rate rose to 95%.
The teachers responding represent the overall distribution of teachers by grade level the overall
district and COE. Data from this survey will be referenced throughout the plan.
Chart 1
Percent of Teacher Respondents by Grade Level
(District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565)
Early
education/PK
Elementary
Middle
K-­8
High
K-­12
Other
Current Student/Teacher Access to Computers: Teachers in the survey reported a total of
7191 instructional computers purchased by the schools and departments: 5138 desktops, 1706
laptops, 35 tablets and 312 netbooks.7
In addition, 781 teachers reported having a total of 4209 donated computers. This number does
not include the 920 personal computers teachers have brought into the classroom.
450 teachers reported having no computers in their classrooms, and 1138 have only computers
older than four years of age.
Based on the number of computers reported on the survey, the average student to computer
ratio is 4.9 to 1. The teachers identified the models for 4806 of the computers in their
classrooms of which 60% were over four years of age. Based on that average, it is estimated
that a minimum of 60% of all classroom computers are over four years of age. All students
have access to these instructional computers, including Special Education (SPED) and English
Language Learner (ELL) students in general education classes.
The percent of computers with Internet connectivity is not known. However, the district is now
conducting walk-throughs of all the schools to assess the status of classroom connectivity to the
Internet. All classroom computers will have broadband connectivity by the end of year 1 of this
plan.
6
7KHVXUYH\ZDVQRWVHQWWRWHDFKHUVRQOHDYHRUZKRZHUHLQSHUPDQHQW³RXWRIFODVVURRP´DVVLJQPHQWV
The district does not have an accurate database on the number of computers in the classroom. The findings from the District Teacher
Technology Survey are the best estimates now available.
7
6|Page
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Chart 2: Number of Computers and Student to Computer Ratios
(District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2550 8)
School Level
Elementary
Total
District
Computers
10
High
2967 1476 2748 Total
7191
Middle
Donated
9
Computers
#
Computers
> 4 Years
Old (60%)
# of
Students
2568
369
747
3684
3321
1107
2097
6525
27429 8974 16497 52900 Student:Computer
Ratio (All
Computers
Student:Computer
Ratio
Computers < 5
Years Old
5.0 4.9 4.7 4.9 8.3
8.1
7.9
8.1
Chart 3: Number of Computers by Grade Level
Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N = 2550
2500
2000
1500
Netbooks or tablets
Desktops
1000
Laptops
500
0
Elementary
Schools
Middle
Schools
High Schools
Chart 4: Percentage of Total Computers at Each Grade Level
Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N = 2550
Total reported computers = 7191
38% 41% Elementary
Schools
Middle Schools
21% High Schools
8
The number of respondents varied for some questions in the survey.
The age of donated computers was not identified on the survey. We have conservatively estimated that the percent of both district funded
and donated computers over four years of age is 60%, although anecdotal information suggests donated computers are generally older than
district purchased ones.
10
Includes both K-5 and K-8 schools
9
7|Page
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Access to Other Technologies: In the District Teacher Technology Survey 2565 teachers identified
what other technology they had in their classrooms. The chart below indicates a significant number
of teachers have printers, projectors and wireless connectivity in their classrooms while the number
of interactive whiteboards has increased from 40 in 2009 to 337 or 13% of the classrooms in 2012.
While the interactive whiteboards are very new, many teachers reported that their printers and
projectors were old and/or unreliable.
Chart 5: Percent of Teachers with Other Technology in their Classrooms
(District Teacher Technology Survey; n=2565)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
60% 50% 49% 41% 13% 7% The distribution of technology across the grade levels also varies significantly. For example,
projectors and interactive whiteboards are more concentrated in middle and high schools than in
early education, elementary and K-8 schools.
Chart 6: Percent of Teachers with Other Technology in Their Classrooms by Grade Level
(District Teacher Technology Survey; N = 2565)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
K-­12
High
K-­8
Middle
Elementary
Early education
8|Page
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Access to Instructional Media: Chart 7 identifies district licenses for software and other
electronic resources 11that have been acquired for teacher and student use.
Chart 7: Software and On-Line Resources Licensed by the District
Microsoft Office
Word
All
Excel
All
Access
Select staff
PowerPoint
All
Microsoft Outlook & Outlook Web Access
Administrators, teachers
Microsoft SharePoint
Administrators, teachers
School Loop
K-12 students, teachers,
administrators, parents
Data Director data management system
K-12 teachers, administrators
Student Information Systems (Synergy/SIS, K-12 classified staff,
SEIS for special education)
administrators, teachers
ConnectEDU
9-12 teachers and students
Culture Grams
K-8 teachers and students
Cyber High online courses
9-12 students
Destiny Library Automation System
K-12 students and teachers
Drop Out Prevention Early Warning System
9-12 teachers, counselors
)HUJXVRQ¶V&DUHHU'DWDEDVH
9-12 teachers and students
Follett eBook Shelves
K-8 teachers and students
Noodle Tools
6-12 teachers and students
Odysseyware online curriculum
Students in 14 middle/high
schools
San Francisco Public Library Online
K-12 teachers and students
Science Online
6-12 teachers and students
SIRS Issues Researcher
9-12 teachers and students
Teaching Books
K-12 students and teachers
7H[WERRN3XEOLVKHUV¶(OHFWURQLF5HVRXUFHV
K-12 teachers, students
World Book Online
K-12 teachers and students
The 2010 EETT Competitive ARRA grant was used to extend the new mandatory ninth grade Plan
Ahead college career curriculum 12 to a digital online platform and create student data-based digital
portfolios and web reports. A portion of the funds also supported the acquisition of a data-based
Dropout Prevention Early Warning System that will be pushed out to all students, teachers,
counselors and administrators over the next three years.
Site Licensed Software: In addition to the district licensed resources in Chart 7, school sites and
various departments have acquired a variety of electronic learning resources. Based on recent
invoices and on reports from the Survey, schools have purchased or are utilizing software for the
following purposes: 13
11
,QWKLV3ODQWKHWHUP³VRIWZDUH´DQG³HOHFWURQLFOHDUQLQJUHVRXUFHV´RU(5/6DUHXVHGLQWHUFKDQJHDEO\
Plan Ahead developed in partnership with Pearson Foundation, Gap Foundation and Hirsch and Associates
13
Listed programs are examples only.
12
9|Page
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Chart 8: School Site Acquired Software and Electronic Resources
Purpose
Sample Software
CAHSEE preparation
Study Island, ALEKS
Collaboration Tools
WIKIs, Google Docs
Curriculum delivery systems
Starfall for early readers, KUTA math, Kahn
Academy
English Learners support
English Now, English 3D, Grammar Gallery,
High Point electronic resources and eassessment
Graphics software
KidPix, PhotoShop Elements
Integrated learning and
Renaissance Learning, READ 180
assessment systems
Interventions
Achieve 3000, Waterford Early Literacy Reading
Program, Accelerated Reader and Accelerated
Math, Cognitive Tutor for Algebra support.,
READ 180, Momentum Math for middle schools
Learning enhancement
BrainPop, Education Program for Gifted Youth
(EPGY), Renzulli Learning System
Problem solving software
Fathom, Geometers Sketchpad
Publishing software
PageMaker, Boardmaker, Adobe Creative Suite,
Adobe Photoshop, Blogs
Special Education student
ComicLife, RTI software, Augmentative and
support
Alternative Communications tools
Web authoring
Adobe Dreamweaver, VoiceThread
Teaching and Learning
Filemaker Pro/ACCESS, Enchanted Learning,
Resources:
National Library of Congress, PBS websites,
FOSS web resources, You Tube,
videostreaming sites.
In the District Teacher Technology Survey, 449 teachers recommended 413 different electronic
resources that they are either using now or in the past in the classroom.
Indicating the need for greater outreach, only eleven of the 449 teachers referenced at least one of
the district licensed library resources.
There has been a reduction in the number of district licenses over the last three years due to budget
limitations, although the goal is to move towards district licensing once the LAN upgrades are
completed in 2013. Most current licenses are purchased by the school sites or, in some cases, by
individual departments for specific student populations. There is no centralized inventory of the
software schools have acquired nor how those resources are being used. There are also no
standards, criteria or guidelines for the selection of software to make sure the resource is
instructionally valid and can be supported by the district hardware and infrastructure.
This pattern makes it difficult to deliver professional development and support, creates inequitable
access for teachers and students, and requires students to learn different tools as they progress
through school rather than using a core set of tools to engage in more complex learning over time.
Extended Access to Technology by Teachers: The 30% of teachers with district-purchased
laptops may use the laptops outside of school, and some schools loan technology, such as digital
10 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
cameras, to teachers. Approximately 35% of teachers reported using their own personal computers
in their classrooms.
Extended Access to Technology for Students and Their Families: Many before- and afterschool programs offer technology training to students and families:
Beacon Centers: The Beacon Centers at sixteen schools are open year-round, before
and after school, evenings and on weekends and offer a variety of services to children
and families including access to computers and the Internet.
Additional After School Programs: Ninety schools have site based after school programs
funded by 21st Century Community Learning Centers and After-School Education and Safety
grants, many of which include computer and video training or access to school labs.
School Libraries: Some libraries in secondary schools are open before school, during
lunch and after school staffed by library media teachers while others fund support staff to
keep libraries open during extended hours.
Public Libraries: All San Francisco public libraries have public computer centers and
are open after school and on weekends. The district has partnered with libraries to
enable library staff to help parents register for and use School Loop and other district
resources.
Other Community Centers: Community computer programs are located throughout
San Francisco that offer free access to technology and computer training programs for
children and their families, including the Ark of Refuge Youth MAP, Arriba Juntos, Boys
and Girls Club Centers, the Embarcadero YMCA, JVS Technology Access Centers,
Booker T. Washington Center, and the Community Youth Center.
San Francisco Housing Authority: Starting in 2008 the San Francisco Housing
Authority placed computer labs in sixteen housing projects.
3B. CURRENT USE OF TECHNOLOGY: (3b.Description of the disWULFW¶VFXUUHQW use of hardware
and software to support teaching and learning.)
Technology Use by Students and Teachers ± Teacher Technology Survey Findings: 46.7% of
the teachers use Word and 70.7% use email everyday compared to creating a PowerPoint (10.2%)
and using videos from You Tube at the same frequency. In fact, the most frequently requested
technology proficiency training requested was for PowerPoint (see Chart 9 on the next page).
11 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Chart 9: Frequency of Use of Basic Technology Tools
(District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565)
100%
80%
60%
40%
Rarely or never
20%
Once a Mon.
Once a week
Everyday
Use You Tube
Create a PPT
Use e-­mail
Word to create
documents
0%
The vast majority of the teachers reported using technology to prepare instructional materials (92%),
to research or find resources for assignments (91%) and to submit grades and perform classroom
management functions (82%). Less than 50% reported using technology to support student problem
solving, teach student information literacy skills or to create effective learning environments.
Chart 10: Percentage of Teachers Using Technology for Instruction
(District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
92% 91% 82% 64% 63% 48% 47% 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
56% 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
43% 9
6XUYH\4XHVWLRQ³'R\RXXVHWHFKQRORJ\IRULQVWUXFWLRQ"6HOHFWDOOWKDWDSSO\´
Prepare Instructional Materials
6. Support Student Research
Research or find resources for assignments
7. Support Student Problem Solving
Grade Submission/Classroom Management
8. Teach Student Information Literacy Skills
Presentations to Class
9. Create Effective Learning Environments
Student Practice/Remediation
12 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
However, when teachers were asked how often they gave assignments that required students to use
technology, only 24% reported do that on a daily or weekly basis.
Chart 11. Frequency of Teachers Giving Assignments Requiring Student Use of Technology
(District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
26% 20% 15% 16% 17% 7% When asked what kept them from using technology more frequently over 72% reported that their
VWXGHQWVGLGQ¶WKDYHDFFHVVWRUHOLDEOHWHFKQRORJ\DWKRPHZKLOHIHOWWKHLUVWXGHQWVODFNHG
adequate technology skills and 40% felt there ZDVQ¶WHQRXJKWLPH7KHODFNRIUHOLDEOHWHFKQRORJ\LQ
the classroom was noted by 47% of WKHWHDFKHUVZKLOHVWDWHGWKDWWKHVFKRROGLGQ¶WKDYHUHOLDEOH
technology for student use DQGRUWKHUHZDVQ¶WHQRXJKWLPH7he need for additional training was
reported by a lower percentage of teachers. 28% felt they needed to become more comfortable with
technology while 33% wanted more support using technology in the classroom. This question
generated a great deal of discussion, however, and over 380 teachers added optional comments.
While these responses are still being analyzed, the majority were related to the lack of access to upto-date, reliable technology by the teachers and the students. (See Chart 12 below.)
13 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Chart 12. Factors that Keep Teachers from Using Technology
(District Technology Survey 2012; N=2565)
72% 80%
60%
54% 47% 40% 42% 37% 33% 28% 40%
20%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4XHVWLRQ³:KDWIDFWRUVNHHS\RXIURPXVLQJWHFKQRORJ\"6HOHFWDOOWKDWDSSO\´
1. ,GRQ¶WKDYHDFFHVVWRUHOLDEOHWHFKQRORJ\LQP\FODVVURRP
2. My students GRQ¶WKDYHDFFHVVWRUHOLDEOHWHFKQRORJ\DWVFKRRO
3. Not all of my students have access to reliable technology at home.
4. Not all of my students have adequate technology skills.
5. I need to become more comfortable using technology in the classroom.
6. I need support integrating technology into my curriculum
7. I have other more pressing priorities and/or expectations.
8. 7KHUHLVQ¶WHQRXJKWLPH
Technology Use - College/Career Readiness: College and Career Readiness is part of the vision
student success. 14 The district recently received a $1 million grant to extend the new mandatory 9th
grade Plan Ahead College and Career curriculum to a digital platform and create digital student
portfolios and web reports. The district is also piloting the online Odysseyware course at
Independence High School in 2011-2012.
The Career Technical Education (CTE) Department supports two high school programs, Career
Academies and Pathways, and the SFCOE Regional Occupation Programs, and supports 2,440
students. The Career Academies are multi-year programs that teach a college-prep curriculum
organized around a career theme and integrate work-based learning into the curriculum. Students
participate in internships and take concurrent courses at City College of San Francisco. All Career
Academies incorporate the latest industry-standard tools, including technology (See Chart 13 on the
next page).
14
SFUSD School Planning Summit Report, February 11, 2012
14 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
X
Ida B Wells
X
X
X
X
Washington
X
X
X
X
X
X
Wallenberg
X
X
2¶&RQQHOO
Lincoln
X
X
Marshall
Galileo
291
199
168
58
41
143
312
105
686
88
99
Burton
Biotechnology/Medical Sciences
Business/Finance
CISCO Pathway
Construction Pathway
Engineering/Construction Trades
Environmental Science/Green California Partnership
Health
Hospitality and Tourism
Information Technology/Digital Arts
Law
Teacher
Balboa
Academies and Pathways
Participants
Chart 13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The County ROP in partnership with City College of San Francisco serves high school students and
young adults and offers courses that focus on training across a wide spectrum of occupational
training program. About 150 high school students are enrolled in technology related ROP training
programs.
Technology Use - Special Education Students: The district and SFCOE serve a total of 6,295
students with special needs (SPED). SPED students in general education classes have access to
existing classroom and library technology, although interviews indicated that not all SPED
classrooms are included in school wide technology deployments. In addition SPED students have
access to assistive technology tools including AlphaSmart Key Boards, Step-by-Step handheld
communications tools, Boardmaker alternative software communications tools, text to speech
technologies, )0UDGLRV\VWHPDQG³VRXQGWRWHDEOHV´WRKHOSIRFXVVWXGHQWDWWHQWLRQRQLQVWUXFWLRQ.
While providing assistive technologies to SPED students is district policy, district funding was only
$30,000 for 2010-2011, which is allocated on a first-come, first-serve basis. Site funding is based on
the number of enrolled SPED students, but the school with the largest population only has a total
budget of $300 for assistive technology.
Technology Use - Data, Assessment and Accountability: The district is implementing a
comprehensive data management system to support data driven instruction and planning that
consists of three major components:
x
Use of Multiple Assessments: In addition to the state mandated diagnostic and summative
assessments, the district has implemented the benchmark Common Learning Assessments
(CLAs) for mathematics and language arts. Approximately 14,000 students took the CLA for
language arts and 19,000 the CLA for mathematics in 2010-2011. All CLAs are scanned and
data returned to teachers within 24 hours. In addition, two diagnostics assessments have been
implemented for students in grades K-2: PALS for early reading and the Brigance for early
development.
x
Student Data Redesign Project: To improve the quality of data the teachers are using and to
meet state reporting requirements, the district is implementing the Student Data Redesign
project. A key component is the migration from a district designed student information system
15 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
x
(SIS) to the web-based Synergy SIS and to the SEIS for SPED students and migrating from the
current CATS program for Early Education to Synergy in in 2014-15. The SIS for SPED and
Early Education will all be bridged with Synergy when fully implemented.
Use of Data for Decision Making: The district implemented a new web-based data
management system, Data Director, in 2010. Data Director allows administrators and teachers
to have ready access to student data, including CST and other state test results, the CLAs,
teacher administered tests, and end-of-chapter tests along with information from the SIS. As of
October 2011 there were 3,083 unique log-ins to the system and a total of 53,926 log-ins
between July and November 2011. The use of student data from Data Director is a major focus
of professional development around the core curriculum and practices that support inclusion and
differentiation of instruction.
Resources to support the assessment program, including support documents for the CLAs, are
available through the Office of Assessment Sharepoint intranet site. In addition, the district is
migrating its budgeting, accounting, purchasing and other enterprise management functions to web
based systems. (See also Component 5.)
Technology Use - Promote Classroom/School Management and Improve School-Home
Communications: Elementary teachers also use Data Director to post grades and to create
standards-based report cards. As of end-or-year 2011 950 or 56% of elementary teachers and
71 schools used Data Director for grades. On the District Teacher Technology Survey, teachers
reported using Data Director ³often´ beyond grading: 34.7% for elementary, 20.7% for middle
school, 30.2% for K-8 and 17.7% for high school teachers.
The district has implemented School Loop, a web-based portal for teachers, students and
parents in 2009. Teachers have access to a range of online classroom management tools and
record attendance. Secondary teachers use School Loop for grades, eliminating time
consuming and cumbersome paper processes. By the last quarter 2011, 81% of the high
schools and 91% of the middle schools were using School Loop for grading, and 68% and 57%
respectively had 90% or more of their teachers using School Loop for grading.
Chart 14: Percentage of Middle and High School Teachers Submitting Grades Using
School Loop
th
(Source: School Loop system statistics for 4 quarter 2010-2011)
100%
50%
0%
% of High
% of High
Schools
Submitting Schools >90% of
teachers
Grades on
submitting
School Loop
grades on
School Loop
% of Middle
Schools
Submitting
Grades on
School Loop
% of Middle
Schools >90% of
teachers
submitting
grades on
School Loop
16 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Communications between school staff, parents and students are also facilitated through School
Loop e-mail. The School Loop student and parent portals give families the ability to monitor
student progress, communicate with teachers and administrators and access assignments, test
schedules, homework resources, school events and news. School Loop also e-mails or places
nightly multilingual calls to parents with student homework and attendance. There are currently
12,111 registered families15 for School Loop and there were a total of 15,298,559 page views
between August and November 2011. With the exception of the county schools 100% of middle
and high schools and 62% of the elementary schools posted 16 to School Loop between August
and October 2011. School Loop is used most heavily by secondary teachers, since initial
training focused on secondary schools to encourage use of School Loop for grading. 88.8% of
middle school and 86% of high school teachers reported being regular users of School Loop,
compared to 13.3% of K-5 teachers. The major reasons teachers offered for not using School
Loop is summarized below.
Chart 15: Primary Reasons for Not Using School Loop
2SWLRQDO4XHVWLRQ³,I\RXDUHQRWDUHJXODUXVHURI6FKRRO/RRSFDQ\RXWHOOXVLIWKHUHLV
DQ\WKLQJZHFDQFKDQJHWRPDNHLWPRUHXVHIXOIRU\RX"´
(District Teacher Technology Survey; Total N = 2565)
(Number responding to optional question = 698)
Need a computer
1RWHQRXJKRWKHUSHRSOHXVHWKH«
My school doesn't use it
Parents don't have technology
No Time
Not easy to use
Not needed for my position/N.A.
Not useful;; just won't use it
Need training
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
The district has also collaborated with School Loop WRVWDQGDUGL]HWKHVFKRROV¶ZHEVLWHVWRPDNH
navigation easier for parents and other end-users.
All teachers and administrators have district e-mail accounts, with approximately 59.1% of the
teachers reporting using district e-mail daily and another 20.2% using it at least once a week.
Preference for School Loop or personal e-mail, resistance to checking multiple e-mail accounts
DQGOLPLWDWLRQVRIWKH'LVWULFW¶VOutlook Web Access (OWA) e-mail platform were identified as
15
If a family registers for more than one student, or a mother and father registering for the same student, they are counted aV³RQHIDPLO\´DQG
are counted once.
16
A posting is defined as an assignment, news item, event or sending an e-mail. Any teacher who has posted 3 or more items within the past
30 days is counted.
17 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
the most common factors discouraging teacher use of e-mail (Source: District Teacher
Technology survey 2012).
Chart 16: Percentage of Teachers and Schools Posting Messages on School Loop
(School Loop system statistics: August ± October 15, 2011
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percentage of Schools
Posting between
August & October 15,
2011 Teachers Only
Posting
Percentage of Schools
Posting between
August & October 15,
2011 All School
Postings
The IT Department is expanding the use of Sharepoint, the GLVWULFW¶VLQWUDQHW that provides tools for
communications, document sharing, classroom management, collaborations, personal productivity,
web content management and training. The district plans to upgrade to Sharepoint 2010 to increase
intranet functionality and to improve ease of use. 62% of the teachers reported being familiar with
the site while 58% said they had actually signed into the site as of January 2012. (Source: District
Teacher Technology survey 2012)
3C. DISTRICT¶S CURRICULAR GOALS SUPPORTED BY THE TECHNOLOGY PLAN: (3c.
List of clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan for using
technology to improve teaching and learning by supporting the district curricular goals.)
7KH6)86'6WUDWHJLF3ODQ³%H\RQGWKH7DON7DNLQJ$FWLRQWR(GXFDWH(YHU\&KLOG1RZ´LV
the primary driver of the Technology Master Plan. Therefore, it is important to place the
district¶V&XUULFXODU*RDOVLQWKHODUJHUFRQWH[WRIWKH3ODQ¶VYLVLRQRIIundamental
transformation for its schools.
District Curricular Goals: On May 28, 2008, the San Francisco School Board adopted a new fiveyear strategic plan 17 that places equity, student achievement and accountability at the forefront.
³%H\RQGWKH7DON´ goes beyond the idea of equitable access for all students. Rather the plan
FKDUJHVWKHVFKRROVDQGGLVWULFWVWDIIWRHOLPLQDWHWKHYDULDELOLW\LQDFKLHYHPHQWEHWZHHQWKHGLVWULFW¶V
highest and lowest performing subgroups of students and end the historic power of demographics in
determining student success. Equity is gauged, therefore, by student outcome and not by allocation
of resources.
The district is focused on three overarching goals:
x
17
Access & Equity ± Make social justice a reality
³Beyond the Talk: Taking Action to Educate Every Child Now´Beyond the Talk 2.0: Strategic Implementation, 2011
18 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
x
x
Student Achievement ± Engage high achieving and joyful learners
Accountability ± Keep our promises to students and families
At the February 11, 2012 Summit Planning meeting, the district laid out its plan to adjust its
course to better focus resources on these goals within the context on the ongoing budget crisis.
Three Strategic Priorities were identified for 2012-15: 18
1. Core Curriculum: Develop and implement a district-wide curriculum aligned from PreK12 that is grounded in English Language Arts and Mathematics Common Core State
Standards and differentiated to address the needs of historically underserved students,
high performing students, English Learners and student with disabilities.
2. Professional Development: Support our teachers and school communities through
robust and diversified professional development that will ensure that at every level every
student is learning the skills they need to thrive at the next level.
3. Replicate Success: Identify and replicate the high-leverage and successful practices
that increase achievement of high performing students and accelerate achievement of
those currently less academically successful.
To support these efforts the district has implemented the following strategies:
1. Use student data Pre-K-12 to assess student learning, establish baseline data,
predicting graduation likelihood through early warning indicators, and linking family
engagement activities to student achievement
2. Promote school innovation and teamwork
3. Focus on strategic community partnerships 19
4. Align priorities and resources towards the three Strategic Priorities
5. Anchor the strategic plan in school planning to focus on improving student achievement
Strategic Priorities Supported by the Technology Plan
1. Strategic Priority #1 - ELA and Mathematics Core Curriculum for Pre-K-12: The
Technology Plan proposes to:
a. Integrate Technology into the Core Curriculum: Embed technology into the
mathematics and languages arts core curricula for Pre-K through 12 with a focus on
inclusionary practices and making that curriculum more accessible to historically
underserved students, English Learners and students with disabilities.
b. Collaboration Tools: Upgrade Sharepoint or identify other secure on-line tools and
platforms to support the teacher collaborations around the core curricula.
18
19
³School Planning Summit Report´)HEUXDU\
Community PDUWQHUVKLSVRXWOLQHGLQWKH³6FKRRO3ODQQLQJ5HSRUW´)HEUXDU\
x
SF School Alliance and Bechtel: Study common Core State Standards in Math
x
Hass Jr.: Early learning and post-secondary
x
Gap and Pearson Foundations: Plan Ahead college/career readiness curriculum
x
Stanford University: Professional development and research (SERP)
x
City and County of San Francisco: DCYFS, voter initiatives, Rainy Day Reserve
19 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
c. Core Curriculum Web Site: Develop a web presence for teachers and parents that
support the core curricula.
d. Broadband to the Classroom: Completion of the three year infrastructure upgrade
project to bring broadband Internet access to all instructional rooms in the district.
e. Core Classroom Technology Suite: Collaborate with the schools to develop strategies
to equip each classroom with a baseline suite of technology tools that support the Core
Curriculum, differentiation of instruction and inclusionary practices.
f.
College/Career Readiness: Support Plan Ahead, the web-based college/career
readiness curriculum that incorporates the online Connect EDU modules.
2. Strategic Priority #2 - Professional Development: The Technology Plan proposes to:
a. Build Capacity through a three tiered approach:
i.
Tier 1: Integrating Technology into the Core Curriculum: Introduce a new
paradigm for professional development in which a curriculum technology integration
specialist and district curriculum and professional development providers co-plan and
co-facilitate professional development around the core curricula in which technology
is embedded. Over time the district will have a cadre of support staff who have
expertise in both curriculum content and the process of integrating technology into the
curriculum.
ii.
Tier 2: Support for Classroom Teachers: Continue to recruit and support a cohort
of site-identified teachers to serve as Technology Lead Teachers who would
participate in a professional learning community to collaborate and hone their skills,
support teachers at their respective sites in the use of technology to support teaching
and learning, and act as technology liaisons between their schools and the district
technology and curriculum departments.
iii.
Tier 3: Technology Integration Teachers: Recruit and support a cadre of teachers
who serve as Technology Integration Teachers in a research and development
function. These teachers would collaborate to develop technology-embedded core
curriculum lesson units, pilot these units with their students, assess and document
outcomes, and assist with dissemination of successful practices throughout the
district.
b. Electronic Professional Development Tools: Identify core curriculum websites to
access videos of effective instruction, virtual classroom observations and other electronic
resources as professional development tools.
3. Strategic Priority #3 - Replicate Success: The Technology Plan proposes to:
a. Research and Dissemination: (See Tier 3: Technology Integration Teachers above.)
b. Disseminate Success: Post videos of best practices, sample technology embedded
lessons and other resources to support effective instruction and student success.
4. District Strategies Supported by the Technology Plan:
a. Data Driven Decision Making: The Technology Plan calls for the completion of the
Student Information Redesign Project, which includes:
i.
Synergy: Migration to a new web-based student information system (SIS) for the
district to improve the quality of student information and to make that information
more accessible to all stakeholders.
20 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
ii.
SEIS: Migration to SEIS, a new web-based comprehensive SIS for Special Education
to ensure more accurate and timely student data and to improve compliance
iii.
Early Education: Migration from CATS to Synergy for Early Education to address
compliance, to facilitate centralized enrollment, better monitor attendance and
increase revenue.
iv.
Eliminating Data Silos: Bridging Synergy with the other SIS and district
management systems that depend on student data to ensure compatibility and to
reduce multiple points of data entry.
v.
Service Management Systems: Deploying program and service management
systems for:
vi.
x
Student Services to coordinate the delivery of services by multiple providers,
to monitor the effectiveness of the services for students, and to provide
SULQFLSDOVZLWKRQOLQHGDWD³GDVKERDUGV´RQVWXGHQWSURJUHVV
x
Early Education to support centralized enrollment, monitor attendance and
improve program compliance.
Graduation Likelihood: Implementing the online Early Warning Systems to predict
and improve likelihood of high school graduation.
5. School Innovation and Teamwork: The Technology Plan calls for the upgrade of
Sharepoint, the district intranet site, or comparable platforms to support (a) real time sharing
of documents, (b) more school to central office and school to school communications and (c)
collaborations among Core Curriculum Workgroups and other Professional Learning
Communities.
6. Aligning Priorities and Resources: The Technology Plan proposes:
a. Coordinating Technology Expenditures: Greater coordination of existing school and
department budgets towards a common vision for technology, especially the baseline
suite of classroom technology, and embedding technology into ongoing professional
development through cross-team collaborations.
b. Improved Enterprise Management Tools: Completion of the three year infrastructure
upgrade is enabling increased utilization of centralized network management tools; online
budgeting, purchasing and accounting tools; and program management systems to
monitor assets, streamline management functions and reduce ITD costs.
7. Family Engagement:: The Technology Plan proposes to support parent involvement
through increased utilization of the School Loop grading, reporting functions and parent and
student portals; the Early Warning Truancy System; the automated calling system; Data
Director grading, reporting and data systems; and district and site web sites.
21 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
3D. CURRICULUM GOALS: (3d. List of clear goals, measurable objectives, annual
benchmarks, and an implementation plan for using technology to improve teaching and learning
by supporting the district curricular goals.)
GOAL 3D1. TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING: All students in grades Pre-K-12,
will have access to a core curriculum LQDOOVXEMHFWVWKDWDUHDOLJQHGZLWKWKHVWDWH¶VFRPPRQ
core curriculum standards in which technology will be used to engage all students, support
inclusionary practices and make the curriculum accessible to historically underserved students,
English Learners and students with disabilities.
Objective 3D1. Integrating Technology into the English Language Arts and
Mathematics Core Curriculum: By June 30, 2015 all schools will implement the ELA
and Math Core Curriculum. Technology will be integrated into the core curriculum
components, including scope and sequence, curriculum maps, sample lesson plans and
lesson units.
Benchmarks:
By June 30, 2013 all teachers will be introduced to the ELA and Math Core Curriculum
Standards.
By June 30, 2014 all teachers will be introduced to the ELA and Math Core Curriculum
Components, including curriculum maps, sample lesson plans and lesson units in which
technology has been embedded.
By June 30, 2015 all teachers will have access to electronic resources that support the
scope and sequence, curriculum maps and sample lesson plans and lesson units.
Implementation Plan
Year
Person responsible: Associate Superintendent C & I; CTO; LEAD Teams;
Supervisors of ELA, Math and Educational Technology; Principals
1. Identify at least one teacher or resource person with technology integration
expertise to work with the Teacher Workgroups developing the ELA and math
core curriculum components and identifying support resources.
2. Upgrade Sharepoint or identify another platform to accommodate a collaborative
space for field test site teachers and other future workgroups as well as information
spaces for others involved in the initial implementation of the curriculum (ex.,
principals, Area Teams, Instructional Reform Facilitators).
3. Design an interactive public core curriculum website.
1-3
4. 3RVWWKHFRPPRQFRUH(/$DQGPDWKVWDQGDUGVDQGWKH³:ULWLQJ3ODQVIRU
Grades PK-12´ to the public website.
5. Post all the core curriculum components on the public core curriculum websites.
1
6. Post sample lesson plans on the core curriculum websites.
2-3
7. Identify and strategically disseminate core curriculum websites that have
resources appropriate for SFUSD: video clips of effective teaching, sample
lesson units, etc.
1
1
1
2
22 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
8. :RUNZLWK6(53¶V'HVLJQ7HDPWRGHYHORSYLGHRFOLSVLOOXVWUDWLQJVSHFLILF
aspects of the core curriculum and assessments and demonstrating sample
lesson plans.
9. Post video clips of teachers illustrating specific aspects of the core curriculum
components and demonstrating sample lesson plans.
10. 3RVWUHVRXUFHVWRVXSSRUWVDPSOHOHVVRQSODQVDQGWKH³5HVRXUFHVIRU
6SLUDO8QLW´GRFXPHQW.
11. Support the continued roll-out of the Plan Ahead, the web-based college/career
readiness curriculum and Connect EDU.
12. Conduct an annual survey of teachers and principals on their technology
proficiency skills and use of technology to support the core curriculum and
inclusionary instructional practices.
2-3
2-3
3
1-3
1-3
3E. TECHNOLOGICAL AND INFORMATION LITERACY GOALS: (3e. List of clear goals,
measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan detailing how and
when students will acquire the technology skills and information literacy skills needed to
succeed in the classroom and the workplace.)
Goal 3E1. Technological and Information Literacy Skills: All students will acquire the
information literacy skills needed in the 21st Century.
Objective 3E1: By June 30, 2015 50% of students will demonstrate grade level
appropriate competencies in the technological and information literacy standards as
defined by the GLVWULFW¶VVWXGHQWWHFKQRORJ\SURILFLHQF\VWDQGDUGVDQGLQIRUPHGE\WKH
Performance Report to the US Department of Education by the California Department of
Education and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE NETS-S.)20
Benchmarks
By June 30, 2013 25% of the students will demonstrate grade level appropriate
competencies in the Research and Information Fluency standards as measured by the
Student Technology Survey.
By June 30, 2014 45% of the students will demonstrate grade level appropriate
competencies in the Research and Information Fluency standards as measured by the
Student Technology Survey.
By June 30, 2015 50% of the students will demonstrate grade level appropriate
competencies in the Research and Information Fluency standards as measured by the
Student Technology Survey.
Implementation Plan
Person responsible: Assoc. Superintendent, C & I; CTO; LEAD; Principals;
Site Library/Media Teachers
Year
1. Adopt articulated, grade level technology proficiency standards for Pre-K-12
that address 21st century skills and student technology proficiency and
information literacy based on the 'LVWULFW¶V21st Century Technological Literacy
1-2
20
1998 National Educational Technology Standards (NETS for Students, International Society for Technology in Education.
http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=NETS
23 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Tool Kit and the National Educational Standards for Students (NETS)
developed by ISTE.
2. Develop and administer the Student Technology Survey.
1&3
3. Post information on technological and information literacy on the district
website.
1-2
4. Incorporate information literacy skills into the ELA and math core curriculum
lessons for each grade level.
1-2
5. Continue to develop lesson units incorporating information literacy skills based on
the Library Standards.
1-3
6. &RQWLQXHWRLQFRUSRUDWHLQIRUPDWLRQOLWHUDF\VNLOOVLQWKHGLVWULFW¶VOLEUDU\FXUULFXOXP
1-3
7. Ensure that an orientation training for students is included as part of the
deployment of the Core Classroom Technology Suite at any site.
1-3
8. Review existing technology curricula in middle schools, the ninth grade technology
modules and the academies and pathways to ensure that grade level appropriate
technology and information skills are incorporated.
1-2
3F. APPROPRIATE AND ETHICAL USE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY GOAL: (3f. List of goals and an implementation plan that describe how
the district will address the appropriate and ethical use of information technology in the
classroom so that students can distinguish lawful from unlawful uses of copyrighted works,
including the following topics: the concept and purpose of both copyright and fair use;
distinguishing lawful from unlawful downloading and peer-to-peer file sharing; and avoiding
plagiarism.)
Goal 3F1. Appropriate and Ethical Use of Information Technology: All students will
recognize the importance of equitable access to information in a democratic society, respect the
principles of intellectual freedom and intellectual property rights, and exercise appropriate and
ethical use of technology.
Implementation Plan
Person responsible: Assoc. Superintendent, C & I; CTO; LEAD; Principals,
Site Library/Media Teachers
Year
1. Adopt articulated, grade level technology proficiency standards for Pre-K-12
that address appropriate and ethical use based on the 'LVWULFW¶Vst Century
Technological Literacy Tool Kit and the National Educational Standards for
Students NETS developed by ISTE.
1
2. Post information on intellectual property rights, plagiarism and ethical use of
technology on the district website.
1-2
3. Incorporate appropriate and ethical use of technology into the 21st century core
curriculum lessons for each grade level.
1-3
4. Review and adopt as necessary board policies, administrative regulations and
Acceptable Use Policies to deal appropriately with violations of ethical use
1
24 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
policies.
5. Review existing technology curricula in middle school, the ninth grade technology
modules and the academies and pathways to ensure that digital citizenship and
ethical use of technology are being taught and assessed.
1-2
6. Continue to incorporate lessons on intellectual property and freedom and ethical
use of information technology LQWKHGLVWULFW¶VOLEUDU\FXUULFXOXP
1-3
3G. Internet Safety Goals: (3g. List of goals and an implementation plan that describe
how the district will address Internet safety, including how to protect online privacy and avoid
online predators.)
Goal 3G1. Internet Safety (Online Privacy and Cyber-Safety): All students will understand
the importance of online etiquette, how to protect online privacy and how to avoid online
predators.
Implementation Plan
Person responsible: Assoc. Superintendent, C & I; CTO; LEAD; Principals;
Site Library/Media Teachers; Student Support Services (SSS)
Year
1. Adopt articulated, grade level technology proficiency standards for Pre-K-12
that address internet safety based on the National Educational Standards for
Students (NETS) developed by ISTE.
1
2. Review and adopt as necessary board policies and administrative regulations
and procedures WREULQJWKHPLQWRFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKH&KLOGUHQ¶V Internet
Protection Act (CIPA) regulations on Internet safety.
1
3. Review and revise as necessary, the differentiated access filtering policy
established in 2010 to ensure the greatest access to online resources for
instructional staff while complying with the new CIPA regulations.
1
4. Develop procedures to certify student completion on the iSafe curriculum.
1
5. Certify student completion of the iSafe curriculum, starting with student
certification of the district-developed model lessons for grades K-12. 21
1-3
6. Review existing technology curricula in middle school, the ninth grade technology
modules and the academies and pathways to ensure that cyber-safety is being
taught and assessed.
7. Post resources to promote cyber-safety on the district website.
1
8. Encourage each school to host assemblies, library orientations and/or special
events featuring cyber-safety and online privacy.
1-3
9. Post guidelines for online privacy and cyber safety practices in all instructional
rooms with computers and Internet access.
1
10. Distribute information to families regarding the online privacy and cyber safety
through the district newsletter and the web site.
1-3
21
1
The district acquired the license for the iSafe curriculum and created a model lesson for each grade level in 2010-11.
25 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
11. Encourage each school to host assemblies, library orientations and/or special
events featuring ethical technology use.
1-3
3H. Equitable Technology Access: (3h. Description of or goals about the district
policy or practices that ensure equitable technology access for all students.)
APPROPRIATE ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY BY ALL STUDENTS AND TEACHERS: Equity is defined by
student outcomes, not by the allocation of resources. $GLDJUDPLOOXVWUDWLQJWKHGLVWULFW¶VJRDOV
for equitable and appropriate access to technology is shown in Chart 17 below.
It is the district goal that all teachers have a laptop for instructional purposes and that all
students have appropriate access to a basic set of technology tools (Core Classroom
Technology Suite) that support 21st Century learning. In addition teachers and students need to
have access to learning enhancement tools that make the curriculum more accessible based on
individual student needs and that support inclusionary practices.
The GLVFUHSDQF\WKDWH[LVWVEHWZHHQWKHGLVWULFW¶VYLVLRQDQGWKHFXUUHQWUHDOLW\DVRXWOLQHGLQ
Curriculum Component 3.a.) results from a wide range of factors, including the existing high
levels of obsolete technologies in the classrooms, drastic cuts to education budgets in general,
DQGWKHXQHYHQGHSOR\PHQWRIWHFKQRORJLHVGXHWRFDWHJRULFDOSURJUDPV¶IXQGLQJFULWHULDRQHtime state and federal technology funding programs, competing priorities for existing funds, and
the lack of coordination between departments and schools in the support of technology. The
latter is critical since expenditures for instructional technology is entirely a site decision.
Chart 17 - Equitable Access to Technology to Support Curricular Goals
Research &
Development
Model Lessons
Replicate Success
Pilots /
Models
Enrichment & Learning
Acceleration Tools
Core Classroom
Technology Suite
Broadband to
the Classroom
Under-served
Students
Other Targeted Needs
All
Students/Teachers/Schools
Core Curriculum
Data Systems
While the plan does not anticipate new revenue streams for technology over the next three
years, the Technology Plan calls for a number of measures to address this disparity, including
completion of the Broadband to the Classroom project begun in 2009 and funded through the
26 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
parcel tax, completion of the Student Data Redesign Project, greater coordination of available
funding for technology by departments and schools, developing better support systems and
reducing costs for the acquisition and support for technology.
The technology plan defines these core tools and what strategies the district will follow to reach
this goal (See Component 5, Goal 5C).
The technology plan also addresses how the use of this technology will be integrated into the
core curricula, starting with the implementation of the mathematics and English language arts
curriculum in 2012-2015. (See Component 3, Goal 3A)
Goal 3H1: The District will phase in a Core Classroom Suite to each classroom that will include
an up-to-date laptop for teachers and computing devices for students, access to broadband
connectivity, a projecting unit to share information and a standard suite of productivity tools.
Implementation Plan
Year
Person responsible: Deputy Superintendents of Policy and Operations and
Instruction, Innovation and Social Justice; Assistant Superintendents of
Leadership, Equity, Achievement and Design; CTO/ITD; Asst.
Superintendents of Early Education, ELL and SPED; Principals; Supervisor
of Educational Technology
(See also Component 5: Infrastructure)
1. Develop standards for the Core Classroom Technology Suite for classrooms,
library media centers and school as a whole.
1
2. In addition to the Core Classroom Technology Suite, identify tools and
applications that support:
1-2
x
The ELA and math core curriculum.
x
ELD instruction across all ELD Pathways and in the general
education classrooms.
x
The Re-designed Special Education Plan for SPED and general
education classrooms.
x
Credit recovery, accelerated learning and specific student needs to
close the achievement gap.
x
The re-designed Early Education Program.
3. Continue to identify funding for the 1:1 laptops for teachers and administrators
.
4. Include progress towards implementing the Core Classroom Technology Suite
in the VFKRROV¶annual reports.
5. Adopt software policies, guidelines and a review procedure for the purchase of
software and other electronic resources that address curriculum and
instructional use, age appropriateness, professional development needs,
technical support required, and hardware and infrastructure requirements.
1-3
6. Apply the software guidelines when adopting textbook and supplementary
resources that include electronic teaching and learning resources.
2-3
1-3
1-2
27 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
7. Coordinate the deployment of the Core Classroom Technology Suite and
infrastructure upgrade with the implementation of the Core Curriculum and the
Superintendent Zone Schools as well as with other technology-related
programs. (See also Component 5 ± Infrastructure.)
1-3
8. Develop research and development capabilities to monitor and evaluate
emerging technologies and applications through ITD, research and
development classrooms, and/or through partnerships with local universities
and institutions. (See also Component 4: Professional Development ±
Technology Integration Teachers.)
1-3
9. In coordination with the schools adopt a computer replacement policy with the
goal of maintaining a ratio of not more than 5 students per each computing
device that is less than 5 years old and connected to the Internet.
2-3
10. Complete the Broadband to the Classroom project to ensure broadband
connectivity for each instructional computer (see Component 5).
1-2
11. Deploy appropriate network management tools to support all networked
devices; to support private cloud storage for students, teachers and
administrators; and to lower technical support costs.
1-3
12. Conduct a survey of students to identify student access to and use of
technology at school and at home, student technology proficiency and
information skills, and understanding of ethical, appropriate and safe online
behavior.
1&3
3I. STUDENT RECORD KEEPING AND ASSESSMENT GOALS: (3i. List of clear goals,
measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan to use technology to
PDNHVWXGHQWUHFRUGNHHSLQJDQGDVVHVVPHQWPRUHHIILFLHQWDQGVXSSRUWLYHRIWHDFKHUV¶efforts
to meet individual student academic needs.)
GOAL 3I1. STUDENT RECORD KEEPING AND ASSESSMENT: Administrators and teachers will
institute a performance management system that ensures data-driven approach to instruction.
They will become proficient with and utilize available technology tools to assess student
learning, to plan instruction that addresses individual learning needs, to manage student records
and to enable students and parents to monitor student progress. Students will use technology
tools to access and organize their work, to collaborate with other students, to set goals for
improvement and become more responsible for the management of their own learning.
Objective 3I1.1: By June 30, 2015 75% of the teachers will use Data Director on a
weekly basis to improve classroom management, monitor student progress, and
differentiate instruction to meet identified student needs, up from 26% in 2012.
By June 30, 2013 35% of teachers and administrators will use Data Director on a weekly
basis.
By June 30, 2014 50% of teachers and administrators will use Data Director on a weekly
basis.
By June 30, 2015 75% of teachers and administrators will use Data Director on a weekly
basis.
28 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Implementation Plan
Persons responsible: Assoc. Superintendents of C & I and RPA; CTO/ITD;
Principals
Year
(See also Component 4: Professional Development)
1. Clarify expectations for the use of Data Director that go beyond grade submission by
teachers.
1
2. Provide more information to teachers and administrators on the functionality of Data
Director and the available pre-set reports.
1-2
3. Continue to incorporate data from multiple assessments as they are implemented
(ex, CLAs; CSTs; assessments for Early Education, SPED and EL); performance
assessments, and teacher generated assessments into Data Director.
1-3
4. Develop a process for accommodating the new performance measures for the
CLAs for ELA.
1
5. Create SPED profiles in Data Director for each school using multiple data points.
1-2
6. Develop a range of pre-set letters in Data Director that teachers can send to
parents in English and Spanish.
1
7. Add reports to Data Director that identify both correct and incorrect responses to
assessments to aid in re-teaching.
1-3
8. Pilot online processing and monitoring for the PALS and DRDP assessments.
1-2
9. Incorporate Early Education data into Data Director.
2
10. Begin planning for the 2014-15 implementation RIWKHVWDWH¶VRQOLQHSmarter
Balanced Assessments to replace the current paper-based CSTs and the online
GED program.
1-2
Objective 3I1.2: By June 30, 2015 the district will fully implement the Student
Information Redesign Project to include migration to the new student information
systems, including the district-wide Synergy, at all P-12 schools to streamline recording
keeping, to improve the scope, quality and accessibility of student data to support datadriven decision making and to comply with state and federal reporting requirements.
Benchmarks:
By June 30, 2013 roll out Synergy mid-year for primary SIS users, including principals,
counselors, school and central office clerks.
By June 30, 2014 roll out Synergy to secondary classroom teachers.
By June 30, 2015 roll out Synergy to elementary classroom teachers.
29 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Implementation Plan
Person responsible: CTO/ITD
Year
1. Complete the data conversion from the district SIS to Synergy and rebuild the
interfaces with applications dependent of SIS data, including School Loop, Data
Director, Horizon, Attention2Attendance, PeopleSoft and SEIS.
1
2. Release the following components: enrollment, master planning, transcripts,
standards based report cards and health and discipline.
1-2
3. Activate online attendance tracking.
3
4. Conduct outreach on the functionalities of Synergy for primary SIS users:
principals, clerks and counselors.
1
5. Conduct outreach on the functionalities of Synergy for classroom teachers.
2-3
6. Establish FOHDUH[SHFWDWLRQVIRUWHDFKHUV¶use of Synergy.
2-3
3J. Two Way Communications between Home and School: 3j. (List of clear
goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks, and an implementation plan to use
technology to improve two-way communication between home and school.)
GOAL 3J1. UTILIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HOME
AND SCHOOL: District and site administrators and teachers will use a range of technologies to
engage all parents and students, regardless of language or economic background, in the
VWXGHQWV¶HGXFDWLRQWRLPSURYHKRPH-school communications with all families and to help all
parents and students to participate in the decision-making at the school and district level.
Objective 3J.1: By June 30, 2015 90% of the administrators and teachers will use
School Loop, district e-mail, the web, call-out systems and other tools on a regular basis
to give all parents and students timely, linguistically appropriate access to meaningful
information and improve two-way communications between the home and school, up
from 49% in 2012.
Benchmarks:
By June 30, 2013 65% of the administrators and teachers will use School Loop, district
e-mail, the web, call-out systems and other tools for communications on a regular basis.
By June 30, 2014 80% of the administrators and teachers will use School Loop, district
e-mail, the web, call-out systems and other tools on a regular basis.
By June 30, 2015 90% of the administrators and teachers will use School Loop, district
e-mail, the web, call-out systems and other tools on a regular basis.
Objectives 3J.2: By June 30, 2015 65% of families will register for School Loop to
access student assignments, grades and attendance and to communicate with teachers
and administrators.
30 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Benchmarks:
By June 30, 2013 25% of families will register for School Loop.
By June 30, 2014 50% of families will register for School Loop.
By June 30, 2015 65% of families will register for School Loop.
Implementation Plan
Person responsible: CTO, LEAD; Principals
Year
(See also Component 4: Professional Development and Component 5:
Infrastructure)
1. Clarify expectations for teachers and administrators on the use of School Loop,
beyond grade submission, with a focus on elementary teachers in the first year.
1
2. Continue to implement the district and school-wide campaigns to register parents
for School Loop.
1-3
3. Promote technology training for parents, including the use of School Loop and the
district web site, through the Office of School/Family Partnerships.
1-3
4. Expand partnerships with community agencies, such as the Beacon Centers,
libraries and the Housing Authority, to give parents and students access to
computers and to training in the use of School Loop, the web site and other
technology proficiency skills.
2
3K. MONITORING AND EVALUATION: (3k. Describe the process that will be used to monitor the
Curricular Component Section 3d-3j goals, objectives, benchmarks, and planned implementation
activities including roles and responsibilities.)
Process to Monitor: To operationalize the Master Plan for Technology the Information Technology
Department (ITD) and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction (C & I) will prepare a detailed
annual implementation plan year to meet the annual benchmarks in the Curriculum Component.
The Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG) is a district central office staffed policy level
committee composed of the Educational Technology Supervisor, CTO and representatives from C &
I and ITD and will meet every 6-8 weeks. The membership of ITAG will include at least one
curriculum specialist in mathematics and ELA. ITAG will be responsible for overall monitoring of the
Technology Master Plan. The Supervisor of Educational Technology, with support from ITD, will be
responsible for documenting the progress of the Technology Plan, will staff ITAG and serve as the
liaison between the ITD and C & I. The CTO will serve as the liaison between ITAG, the
6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V&DELQHW and the Board of Education.
The Supervisor of Educational Technology will prepare quarterly reports on progress towards the
Curriculum objectives and benchmarks for ITAG. On behalf of ITAG, the Supervisor of Educational
Technology and the CTO will submit semi-annual reports to Associate Superintendent of C & I and
the Associate Superintendent of Research, Planning and Accountability (RPA). Annual reports will
EHVXEPLWWHGWRWKH6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V&DELQHWDQGWRWKH%RDUGRI(GXFDWLRQZLWKUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV
IRUHDFK\HDU¶VDQQXDOLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ plan every October/November.
31 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Evaluation Instruments & Data To Be Collected
Frequency of Collection
District and Site Balanced Score Cards
x District and site measures of progress towards
curricular and technology objectives
Teacher Technology Survey
x Teacher personal use for classroom management
and instruction
x Teacher progress towards CCTC Technology
Standards 9 and 16.
x Teacher assignments requiring student use of
technology
Principal Technology Survey
x Principal technology proficiency and use
x Role of technology in school site plan
x Expectations for teacher use of technology
Classroom Observations
x Teacher use of technology for instruction
x Evidence of students using technology
x Site implementation of the Core Curriculum
Student Work Products
x Evidence of students and teachers using
technology in the classroom.
School Loop Use Statistics
x Teacher and school postings
x Teacher course web sites
x Student and family registrations and logons
Student Technology Survey
x Student technology skills proficiency, awareness
of cyber-ethics and cyber-safety
x Student access to and use of technology
Technology installation logs
x Deployment of the Core Classroom Technology
Suite
x Upgrade of site LANs
Data Director
x Student progress: standardized tests, CLAs,
teacher administered tests, attendance, etc.
x Use of Data Director
Annually
Annually
Annually
Fall, Spring
Annually
Quarterly
Years 1 and 3
Quarterly
Fall, Spring
COMPONENT 4 ± PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
4.A. CURRENT TECHNOLOGY PROFICIENCY AND INTEGRATION SKILLS AND
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS 6XPPDU\RIWKHWHDFKHUV¶DQGDGPLQLVWUDWRUV¶
current technology proficiency and integration skills and needs for professional development.)
Teacher Technology Proficiency Skills: Over 48% of the teachers reported they were
Intermediate Users of Technology (³I know more than my peers and can teach others´) or Experts (³I
32 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
know a lot in depth in one or more areas´ ) for technology proficiency. Only 5% identified as a
Beginner or reported WKH\GLGQ¶WXVHWHFKQRORJ\.
Chart 18: Percent of Teachers Reporting Technology Proficiency Skills
(District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Teacher Technology Proficiency to Support Instruction ± CTC Standards 9 and 16:
As referenced in Component 3, the vast majority of the teachers reported using technology to
prepare instructional materials (92%), to research or find resources for assignments (91%) and to
submit grades and perform classroom management functions (82%) and to a lesser extent to make
presentations to students (64%). When asked about factors that kept them from using technology,
28% said they needed to become more comfortable using the technology in the classroom.
Teachers reported less frequent use of technology to support student learning. The chart below
illustrates how frequently teachers reported integrating technology into the curriculum. (Also see
Chart 12 on page 14 in Component 3.)
Chart 19. Percent of Teachers Using Technology to Support Student Learning by Grade Level
(District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565)
Early
K-5
Middle
K-8
High
Ed.
School
School
K-12
Other
Total
Standard 9
Prepare instructional materials
64%
93%
88%
91%
94%
91%
73%
91%
Research or find resources for class
assignment
64%
92%
93%
91%
93%
89%
85%
92%
Grade submission and classroom
management
24%
76%
91%
76%
93%
85%
81%
82%
Presentations to the classroom
32%
52%
70%
68%
77%
67%
62%
63%
Student remediation and/or practice
22%
48%
49%
47%
47%
52%
38%
47%
Support student research
27%
50%
62%
55%
68%
64%
35%
56%
Teach students information literacy skills
Support student problem solving Create more effective learning
environments 38%
29%
48%
36%
48%
46%
48%
43%
51%
54%
50%
49%
35%
42%
48%
43%
59%
59%
64%
63%
71%
78%
62%
64%
Standard 16
33 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Chart 20.
Percent of Teachers Using Technology to Support Student Learning by Grade Level
(Using Technology to Meet CTC Standard 9)
(District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565)
Presentations to the
classroom
Grade submission &
classroom
management
Research/find
resources for
assignments
High School
Middle School
K-­5
Prepare instructional
materials
0%
50%
100%
Chart 21.
Percent of Teachers Using Technology to Support Student Learning by Grade Level
(Using Technology to Meet CTC Standard 16)
(District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565)
Create effective learning
environments
Support problem solving
Teach information literacy
skills
High School
Middle School
K-­5
Support student research
Student
remediation/practice
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
34 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
However, when teachers were asked how often they gave assignments that required students to use
technology, only 24% overall reported do that on a daily or weekly basis.
Chart 22.
Percent of Teachers Giving Assignments that Require Students to Use Technology
(Teacher Technology Survey 2012, N = 2565)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
26% 20% 15% 16% 17% 7% Teacher Believe in Use of Technology to Increase Student Achievement:: In spite of all the
barriers to the use of technology, 74% of teachers agreed moderately or strongly that technology
could make a difference in student achievement. In a related question only 37% said they had other
more pressing priorities and/or expectations than the use of technology in the classroom.
Chart 23: Teacher Belief in Value of Technology to Increase Student Achievement
6WDWHPHQW³,EHOLHYHWKDWWHFKQRORJ\FDQEHXWLOL]HGWRLQFUHDVHVWXGHQWDFKLHYHPHQW´
(District Teacher Technology Survey 2012; N=2565)
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
43.4% 30.6% 3.7% 8.2% 12.0% 1.1% 0.9% 35 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Administrators Technology Proficiency Skills and Use: Principals did not take the Teacher
Technology Survey in January 2012. The district plans to develop a survey specifically for principals
and academic assistant principals during 2012-13. However, the 102 principals taking the
EdTechProfile in January 2009 reported a slightly higher level of proficiency skills than teachers in
general computer knowledge and e-mail skills (92% and 90%) respectively and reported the same
level of proficiency with the Internet (73%). However, less than 10% of the administrators responded
to the ETP questions addressing technology use, which were related to classroom use. All
administrators are required to use district e-mail for school business, School Loop for postings and
site web sites, and Data Director and Sharepoint UHVRXUFHVIRUWKHVFKRRO¶V%DODQFHG6FKRRO&DUG
annual plan.
Summary of Needs and Strategies for Professional Development:
1. Integrating Technology into the ELA and Math Core Curriculum: Professional
development over the next three years must focus on the integration of technology into
the ELA and math core curriculum as the curricula are phased in over the next three
years, given the pattern of technology use for instruction indicated above and research
findings referenced in Component 9. Additionally, the new core curricula introduces new
instructional strategies and a more collaborative role for teachers in the implementation
of the core curriculum, which will require ongoing professional development and
support. Technology must be an integral part of that process.
While a student learning keyboarding, word processing a document or working with drill
and practice software may have merit, effective curriculum integration occurs when
technology is utilized to support academic mastery, make the core curriculum more
accessible to all students, and support the development of 21st Century skills. The model
oQWKHQH[WSDJHGHILQHVKRZWKHWHUP³FXUULFXOXPWHFKQRORJ\LQWHJUDWLRQ´LVXVHGLQWKLV
plan.
36 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Chart 24: Integration of Technology into the Curriculum ± A Definition
Core
Curriculum
for All
Students:
Language Arts
Mathematics
Science
st
21
Century
Skills
Academic
Mastery
Curriculum/
Technology
Integration
Technology
Proficiency
Skills
Multilingual/Crosscultural Competency
Technological Literacy
Communication Skills
Aesthetic Sensibility
Critical & Creative
Thinking,
Reasoning and Solution
Seeking
Social, Environmental, &
Civic Responsibility
Strength of Character
Basic operations & concepts
Ethical issues & cyber-safety
Technology productivity tools
Technology communications
tools
Technology research tools
Technology problem-solving and
decision-making tools
2. Technology Tools to Support Professional Development and Teacher Collaborations:
The district must also develop the technology platforms to support the use of data in
instructional planning, foster collaborations among the equity-centered professional learning
communities, and provide access to best practices and expertise by the entire educational
community. It is critical to identify or create websites for the core curriculum that give
teachers ready access to common core curriculum standards, core curriculum components,
and sample lesson units. Video clips of effective teaching that could be posted on the web
site or used within a professional development setting will be a powerful resource.
3. Integrating Technology into the Core Curriculum while Building Staff Capacity:
Historically, each department and program has developed its own professional development
program with little coordination, inter-program planning or sharing of resources. In this model
WHFKQRORJ\KDVEHFRPH\HWDQRWKHUVXEMHFWRU³SURJUDP´ZLWKIHZUHVRXUFHV6HH&KDUW5
on the next page.)
37 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Chart 25. The Traditional Model for Technology Professional Development
Teacher
Professional
Development
Providers
(Examples only)
Support
Services
ELL
Curriculum
SPED
Technology
This model has four weaknesses:
1. Technology training tends to become tangential to curriculum or district priorities or
what is measured in high stakes state testing.
2. Isolated technology training that is not embedded in a long term change process has
PLQLPDOLPSDFWRQWHDFKHUV¶LQVWUXFWLonal practices.
3. Technology becomes a relatively low priority in the face of ongoing budget cuts
4. 7HFKQRORJ\LQWHJUDWLRQ³H[SHUWLVH´LQWKHGLVWULFWUHVWVwith a few staff.
Chart 26. ± An Alternative Model
Integrating Technology into the Core Curriculum and Building Staff Capacity
The Technology Plan proposes a three tier model of technology embedded professional
development that shifts the primary focus towards building long term capacity:
Tier 2
Classroom
Teacher
Technology
Integration
Teachers
Tier 3
Site
Technology
Lead
Teachers
Core Curriculum and Other
Professional Development
Specialists
Tier 1
Technology
Integration
Specialists
38 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Tier 1 ± Integrating Technology into the Core Curriculum: The Technology Plan
proposes to team one or more technology integration specialists with the workgroup of
teachers and district staff developing the core curriculum and the subsequent
professional development. The Technology Integration Specialist would (a) identify
resources to support the collaboration around the core curriculum, (b) help integrate
technology into the core curriculum components and resources and (c) co-plan and cofacilitate professional development with district staff.
Benefits:
x
TecKQRORJ\ZRXOGEHLQWHJUDOWRWKHGHVLJQRIWKHGLVWULFW¶VFRUHLQLWLDWLYHVDQG
embedded in the professional development of the core curriculum and other
district priorities.
x
Teachers would learn to use the technology tools as an integral part of the core
curriculum and effective instructional practices.
x
2YHUWLPHWKH³FRQWHQW´SURIHVVLRQDOGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGHUVZRXOGDOVREHFRPH
more proficient in the use of technology and understand the process of integrating
technology into the curriculum. They would become specialists in both curriculum
and in the integration of technology into instruction.
Tier 2 ± Technology Lead Teachers to Support Classroom Teachers: In the interim,
teachers need support at their sites. Sites would identify at least one certificated staff
person to serve as the Technology Lead Teacher. This teacher could be the site
Curriculum Integration Specialist, the library/media teacher or a classroom teacher who is
proficient in the use of technology to support instruction. 22 The Technology Lead
Teachers would join a professional learning community, collaborating with one another
and participating in professional development during regular meetings, serve as the
technology liaisons between their sites and C & I and ITD, and offer support to teachers
at their respective sites.
Benefits:
x
Classroom teachers would have a level of technology integration support at their
sites.
x
The Technology Lead Teachers would further develop their skills over time and
be able to collaborate through the monthly collaborations and professional
development.
x
The district would have a channel of communications on the impact of technology
policies and practices on classroom teachers.
Tier 3 ± Technology Integration Teachers ± Replicating Success: To identify what
technology embedded practices are most effective with SFUSD and COE students, the
Technology Plan calls for the creation of a research, development and dissemination
capability. The district would recruit a cadre of teachers to serve as Technology
Integration Teachers who would work collaboratively to develop and refine technologyembedded core curriculum lesson units and other curriculum components, pilot these
22
N.B. Technology Lead Teachers would not be a full time function. A full time technology teacher at each site would cost the district
approximately $8 million. Instead, the Technology Lead Teachers mightreceive some small compensation/stipend from the district to
participate in professional development and provide support at the school site.
39 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
units with their students, assess and document outcomes, and assist with the
dissemination of successful practices throughout the district.
Benefits:
x
The Technology Integration Teachers would deepen their knowledge of the core
curriculum, best technology embedded practices and field research.
x
Teachers would have access to lessons and other instructional resources proven
effective with SFUSD students.
x
Technology Integration Teachers would become professional development
resources for the district.
4B. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS, BENCHMARKS, AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: (List of clear goals, measurable objectives, annual benchmarks,
and an implementation plan for providing professional development opportunities based on your
district needs assessment data (4a) and the Curriculum Component objectives (Sections 3d
through 3j of the plan).
(IN SUPPORT OF CURRICULUM GOAL 3D.1.1: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY INTO THE ELA AND MATH
CORE CURRICULUM.)
GOAL 4B1. - STAFF TECHNOLOGY PROFICIENCY: All curriculum and professional development
specialists, librarians/media specialists, and coaches and principals will become personally
proficient in the use of the Core Classroom Technology Suite, to include personal computer
productivity tools and the effective use of Internet tools and resources. All staff will achieve at
least an Intermediate Level of Personal Proficiency as defined by the Teacher Technology
Survey administered by the district.
Objective 4B1.1: By June 30, 2015 40% of the district and site professional and
curriculum development leadership will achieve the WHFKQRORJ\VNLOOOHYHORI³([SHUW´on
the Teacher Technology Survey from an estimated baseline of 12% in 2012.
Benchmarks:
By June 30, 2013 20% of professional and curriculum development leadership will be at
the Technology Skills Proficiency level.
By June 30, 2014 30% of professional and curriculum development leadership will be at
the Technology Skills Proficiency level.
By June 30, 2015 40% of professional and curriculum development leadership will be at
the Technology Skills Proficiency level.
Objective 4B1.2: By June 30, 2015 75% of classroom teachers will achieve a
WHFKQRORJ\VNLOOOHYHORIDWOHDVW³,QWHUPHGLDWH´RQWKH7HDFKHU7HFKQRORJ\6XUYH\IURP
an estimated baseline of 46% in 2012.
Benchmarks:
By June 30, 2013 50% of teachers and site administrators will be at the Technology
Skills Proficiency level.
By June 30, 2014 65% of teachers and site administrators will be at the Technology
Skills Proficiency level.
40 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
By June 30, 2015 75% of teachers and site administrators will be at the Technology
Skills Proficiency level.
Implementation Plan
Year
Person responsible: Associate Superintendent C & I, CTO/ITD, LEAD; Supervisor
of Educational Technology in support of the Technology Lead Teachers;
1. Adopt Technology Proficiency Standards for teachers and administrators
1
2. Adopt Technology Proficiency Standards for paraprofessionals
1
3. Conduct outreach for specific trainings to develop technology proficiency skills based
on teacher responses on the Teacher Technology survey (ex, introduction to
PowerPoint, introduction to Word 2010, etc.
1-3
4. Require an introductory training with deployment of new technology tools.
1-3
5. Develop a support system and incentives for a cadre of one or more technology lead
teachers at each school who can provide site technology proficiency support.
1-3
6. Post technology how-WR¶VDQGYLGHRWXWRULDOVRQWKHZHEWRJLYHWHDFKHUVDQG
instructors just-in-time, any time technology skills support.
2-3
7. Include professional development for SPED and general education teachers on low
technology modifications to make the curriculum more accessible to students with
special needs.
1-3
8. (See also Goal B. 2 since most technology proficiency training will be embedded in
the professional development for the ELA and math core curriculum.)
(IN SUPPORT OF CURRICULUM GOAL 3D.1.1: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY INTO THE ELA AND MATH
CORE CURRICULUM.)
GOAL 4B2. ± INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY INTO THE CORE CURRICULUM INITIATIVE: All teachers will
implement the core curriculum for ELA and math in which powerful technology tools will be used
technology to make the curriculum accessible to all students, to support inclusionary
instructional practices and to create safe, engaging and authentic learning environments in
which students are empowered to succeed as defined in the Strategic Plan.
Objective 4B2.1: By June 30, 2015 all district and site professional and curriculum
development leadership implementing the core curriculum will be proficient in the
integration of technology into the ELA and math core curriculum up from an estimated
7% in 2011.
Benchmarks:
By June 30, 2013 25% of professional and curriculum development leadership will be
proficient in the integration of technology into the ELA and math core curriculum.
By June 30, 2014 50% of professional and curriculum development leadership will be
proficient in the integration of technology into the ELA and math core curriculum.
By June 30, 2015 100% of professional and curriculum development leadership will be
proficient in the integration of technology into the ELA and math core curriculum.
41 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Objective 4B2.2: By June 30, 2015 50% of classroom teachers and site administrators
will be proficient in the integration of the Core Classroom Technology Suite in a 21st
Century Curriculum up from an estimated 7% in 2011.
Benchmarks:
By June 30, 2013 10% of the classroom teachers and site administrators will be proficient in
the integration of technology into the ELA and math core curriculum.
By June 30, 2014 25% of the classroom teachers and site administrators will be proficient in
the integration of technology into the ELA and math core curriculum.
By June 30, 2015 50% of the classroom teachers and site administrators will be proficient in
the integration of technology into the ELA and math core curriculum.
Implementation Plan
Year
Person responsible: Associate Superintendent C & I, CTO/ITD, LEADS;
Supervisor of Educational Technology with the Technology Lead Teachers;
Supervisors of ELA and Mathematics
1. Assign a technology integration specialist to collaborate with a district professional
development provider to co-plan and co-facilitate a series of trainings with teachers
WRHVWDEOLVKD³SURRIRIFRQFHSW´IRUWKHQHZSURIHVVLRQDOGHYHORSPHQWPRGHOIRU
technology.
1
2. Pilot an expanded team approach to include specialists in technology integration,
SPED, ELD and curriculum content to plan professional development to reflect the
integrated service delivery model.
1
3. Identify online collaboration tools, such as Sharepoint or other platforms, to support
the Teacher Workgroups developing the core curriculum and other teacher
collaborations around curriculum.
1
4. Develop a three year professional development plan that integrates technology into
the professional development and teacher collaborations around the ELA and math
core curriculum based on experience with the year 1 pilots.
1-2
5. Identify/recruit elementary and secondary technology integration specialists 23 to
work with the professional development and content leaders.
1
6. Implement the three-year plan for site and district professional and curriculum
development staff to include the collaborations among technology integration
specialists and professional development staff in the planning and
implementation of the ELA and math core curriculum professional development
program.
2-3
7. Post ELA and math professional development resources on the core curriculum
website or identify resources on core curriculum web sites from other states.
1-3
8. Post online technology-embedded lessons, best practices and classroom videos
developed by the Technology Teacher Leaders, Technology Integration
2-3
23
These Technology Integration Specialists may be district staff, contractors or teachers with technology integration skills. The latter can be
drawn from the Technology Lead Teachers and Technology Integration Teachers in years 2-3.
42 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Teachers and Core Curriculum Teacher Workgroups.
9. Recruit and meet at least bi-monthly with a cadre of Technology Lead Teachers
1-3
10. Develop a plan and application process for Technology Integration Teachers.
1
11. Phase in a cohort of 10-15 Technology Integration Teachers each year who will
pilot best practices, develop model lessons and support technology at their
respective sites.
2-3
12. Develop job descriptions for, a selection process, a support system and
incentives stipends, extra pay and/or release time to recruit a cadre of one or
more Technology Teacher Leaders at each school who will serve as liaison with
the district and support technology at their respective sites.
1-3
13. Partner with SERP and other partners to create videos of complex instruction
and effective teaching of the core curriculum and a website with exemplars of
student work.
2-3
14. Research the feasibility of a mobile Technology Suite van for on-site
professional development on the integration of technology into the core
curriculum.
3
(IN SUPPORT OF CURRICULUM GOAL 3E.1 ± 3G.1: TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION LITERACY
SKILLS, APPROPRIATE AND ETHICAL USE OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTERNET SAFETY GOALS.)
Goal 4B3 ± DEVELOPING STUDENT INFORMATION LITERACY SKILLS, ETHICAL USE OF TECHNOLOGY
AND INTERNET SAFETY: All teachers and staff will understand and develop school environments
in which students are able to demonstrate information and literacy skills and safe and ethical
use of technology, and how to protect their privacy on the Internet.
Objective 4B3.1: By June 30, 2015 all teachers and staff will demonstrate an
XQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHGLVWULFW¶VDFFHSWDEOHXVHSROLFLHVWKDWZLOOLQFOXGHUHIHUHQFHVWRWKH
Research and Information Fluency and the Digital Citizenship standards as defined by
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) up from 16% in 2011.
Benchmarks
By June 30, 2013 30% of the teachers and staff will demonstrate an understanding of the
GLVWULFW¶VDFFHSWDEOHXVHSROLFLHV
By June 30, 2014 60% of the teachers and staff will demonstrate an understanding of the
GLVWULFW¶VDFFHSWDEOHXVHSROLFLHV
By June 30, 2015 all teachers and staff will demonstrate an XQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHGLVWULFW¶V
acceptable use policies.
Objective 4B3.2: By June 30, 2015 all teachers and staff will clearly communicate the
district requirements in the acceptable use policies and the expectations for ethical and safe
use of technology and implement lessons that allow students to demonstrate information
and literacy skills and safe and ethical use of technology, including the Internet, up from
10% in 2011.
43 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Benchmarks:
By June 30, 2013 30% of the teachers and staff will communicate district requirements
and implement lessons that allow students to demonstrate information and literacy skills
and safe and ethical use of technology, including the Internet.
By June 30, 2014 60% of the teachers and staff will communicate district requirements
and implement lessons that allow students to demonstrate information and literacy skills
and safe and ethical use of technology, including the Internet.
By June 30, 2015 all teachers and staff will communicate district requirements and
implement lessons that allow students to demonstrate information and literacy skills and
safe and ethical use of technology, including the Internet.
Implementation Plan
Year
Person responsible: Associate Superintendent C & I, CTO; Principals; Site
Librarians/Media Teachers
1. Emphasize Research and Information Fluency and Digital Citizenship standards
in the professional development for the core curriculum.
2-3
2. Develop and post on-line the grade level student and teacher profiles that illustrate
the Research and Information Fluency and Digital Citizenship standards from ISTE
NET-S.
1-2
3. Provide training on the new CIPA requirements and on the lesson units adapted
from the iSafe curriculum.
1
4. Clarify expectations for teaching the iSafe lessons and the importance of certification
of students completing lessons on cyber-safety.
1
5. Adapt additional iSafe lesson units and make them available for teachers
2-3
6. Review AUPs for teachers for compliance with ISTE standards on Research and
Information Fluency and Digital Citizenship
1
(IN SUPPORT OF CURRICULUM GOAL3 I.1: STUDENT RECORD KEEPING AND ASSESSMENT GOALS.)
GOAL 4B4: USE OF DATA TO IMPROVE INSTRUCTION: All teachers and administrators will be
proficient in the analysis of assessment data and student work and collaborate with other
members of their professional learning communities to plan instruction that addresses identified
individual student needs, monitor student progress and adjust instruction in an ongoing cycle of
inquiry.
Objective 4B4.1: By June 30, 2015 75% of the teachers and administrators will use
Data Director on a weekly basis to improve classroom management, monitor student
progress, and differentiate instruction to meet identified student needs, up from 26% in
2011.
By June 30, 2013 35% of teachers and administrators will use Data Director on a weekly
basis.
By June 30, 2014 50% of teachers and administrators will use Data Director on a weekly
basis.
44 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
By June 30, 2015 75% of teachers and administrators will use Data Director on a weekly
basis.
Implementation Plan
Year
Person responsible: Associate Superintendent, RPA; Associate
Superintendent C & I, Principals
1. Continue to use a combination of Help Desk support, teacher workshops,
customized school training events, on-line training events and resources and
call-in support for teachers and administrators in the use of Data Director, with a
focus on middle and high school teachers in 2012-14.
1-3
2. Provide professional development on the use of Data Director to identify student
gaps in performance, especially for EL and SPED students.
1-3
3. Provide professional development, coaching and information to teachers on the
functionality of Synergy and Data Director.
1-2
4. &RQWLQXHWRXWLOL]HSURWRFROVDQGDV\VWHPRIVXSSRUWIRUWHDFKHUV¶DQG
DGPLQLVWUDWRUV¶H[DPLQDWLRQRIDVVHVVPHQWGDWDDQGstudent work.
1-3
5. Develop and post on-line exemplars for student work for all standards grades
Pre-K through 12 to support assessment of student work.
2-3
6. Add links in Data Director to sample lessons with visuals, materials, sample
enhancements that provide teachers with guidance on responses to student
data.
3
Objective 4B4.2: By June 30, 2015 100% of primary SIS users will use Synergy on a
daily basis and 40% of classroom teachers on a weekly basis to improve student data,
support classroom management, identify factors that might create barriers to student
progress, and develop effective student interventions and support.
By June 30, 2013 100% of primary SIS users will use Synergy on a daily basis.
By June 30, 2014 25% of teachers will use Synergy on a weekly basis.
By June 30, 2015 40% of teachers will use Synergy on a weekly basis.
Implementation Plan
Year
Person responsible: CTO/ITD
1. Establish a training program and support system for end users of Synergy.
1
2. Commplete professional development on Synergy for the primary SIS users.
1
3. Initiate professional development on Synergy for the secondary classroom
teachers.
2
4. Initiate professional development on Synergy for the elementary classroom
teachers.
3
45 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
(IN SUPPORT OF CURRICULUM GOAL 3J1: TWO W AY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HOME AND SCHOOL.)
GOAL 4B5 ± USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE TWO-WAY HOME-SCHOOL COMMUNICATIONS: All
teachers and administrators will use the available two-way communications tools to improve
communications between school and the home and to engage students and their families in the
education of the students.
Objective 4B5.1: By June 30, 2015 all staff will use e-mail and School Loop regularly to
communicate regularly with and engage students and their families, up from 49% overall
in 2011 24.
Benchmarks:
By June 30, 2013 65% of the teachers and administrators will use e-mail and School
Loop to communicate with students and families.
By June 30, 2014 85% of the teachers and administrators will use e-mail and School
Loop to communicate with students and families.
By June 30, 2015 100% of the teachers and administrators will use e-mail and School
Loop to communicate with students and families.
.
Implementation Plan
Year
Person responsible: Associate Superintendent C & I, CTO, LEAD Teams,
Principals
1. Continue to provide training to all school staff in the use of all of School Loop
functions, focusing on elementary teachers and administrators in years 1 and 2.
1-3
2. Continue to provide ongoing support for a cadre of School Loop support liaisons
at each site
1-3
3. Monitor staff use of School Loop.
1-3
4. Continue to work with the School Loop developer to improve ease of use by
teachers.
1-3
5. Encourage each school to maintain up-to-date information on its web site.
1-2
4C. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
(Describe the process that will be used to monitor
the Professional Development (Section 4b goals, objectives, benchmarks, and planned
implementation activities including roles and responsibilities.
Process to Monitor: The process to monitor implementation of the Professional Development
Component will be the same as described in the Curriculum Component (page 31). ITAG
membership includes representation district content specialists.
24
However use among elementary teachers was 13%.
46 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Evaluation Instrument(s & Data To Be Collected
Frequency of Collection
Teacher and Principal Technology Surveys
x Professional development needs
x Level of professional development participation
x Barriers to effective use of technology
x Effective professional development strategies
x Percent using e-mail to communicate with students and
parents.
School Loop Use Statistics
x Teacher and school postings
x Teacher course web sites
x Family registrations and page views
Data Director Use Statistics
x Number of registered users
x Frequency of log-ins
x Types of resources accessed
x Student progress
Meetings sign-in sheets, agendas, handouts and work
products
x Professional development participation
x Examples of how technology was integrated into the training
Sample Curriculum Components and Lesson Units
x Integration of technology into the core curriculum
x ,QWHJUDWLRQRIWHFKQRORJ\LQWRWHDFKHUV¶WHDFKLQJUHVRXUFHV
x Evidence of teachers giving assignment requiring students
to use technology.
Classroom Observations Logs
x Teacher use of technology for instruction
x Teacher implementation of best practices
x Evidence of student engaged with technology
Annually
Quarterly
Fall, Spring
Quarterly
Annually
Fall, Spring
COMPONENT 5 ± INFRASTRUCTURE, HARDWARE, ELECTRONIC
RESOURCES, TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND SOFTWARE
5A. EXISTING HARDWARE, INTERNET ACCESS, ELECTRONIC RESOURCES AND
TECHNICAL SUPPORT: (5a. Describe the existing hardware, Internet access, electronic
learning resources, and technical support already in the district that will be used to support the
Curriculum and Professional Development Components (Components 3 & 4) of the plan.)
Existing Computer Access: There are approximately 10,875 site purchased and donated
instructional computers in district and COE classrooms, labs and libraries, of which 95% are
connected to the Internet. 25 By 2012-2013 all SFUSD instructional computers will be
connected to the Internet. All county classroom computers except those at the Youth Guidance
25
Based on the Teacher Technology Survey 2012 that was completed by 95% of the K-12 teachers.
47 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Center are connected to the Internet now. The overall student to computer ratio is 4.9. However,
the conservative estimate is that 6,525 of these computers or 60% are over 4 years of age,26
and the student to computer ratio increases to 8.1 to 1 for computers that are less than five
years of age. Regardless of age all functional computing devices will be used to support the
curriculum and professional development components until they can be replaced or cease to be
functional. (See Component 3: Curriculum for more detail.)
Access to Other Hardware: The following technology is also available in classrooms.
Technology
Document cameras
Projectors
Printers
Interactive whiteboards
Enhanced audio/speaker system
Number of Teachers Having
Technology
1043
1279
1545
337
183
Percent of Teachers Having
Technology
41%
50%
60%
13%
7%
The goal of the Technology Plan is to build on these existing technologies to phase in the Core
Technology Suite in classrooms. (See also Component 3: Curriculum for more detail about
existing technology.)
Operating Platform: The district has selected standard models of HP PC and Macintosh
desktops and laptops. Approximately 32% of the teachers reported having a Mac or a MAC and
PC in their classrooms. With Microsoft Active Directory now fully deployed and integrated as the
standard authentication service for SFUSD, ITD continues to struggle to support Apple
consumer devices in the enterprise infrastructure. To improve the ability to support Apple
devices ITD has begun to test third party solutions that provide the ability to remotely administer
and update Apple devices. However, authentication for users of Apple devices remains
problematic but is inherent to the Apple technology and its lack of native support enterprise
authentication such as for Active Directory.
Coordination and Management: While schools and departments continue to acquire
computers and other technologies, there has been little coordination in purchasing decisions,
and standards were often ignored. To address the standards issue, ITD is now included in the
current manual purchasing process, but upgrades to the financial system will support online
purchasing and will route all technology requisitions through ITD.
Recent deployment of centralized management tools, such as Kaspersky anti-virus software on
98% of the HP desktops and Computrace VRIWZDUHRQZLUHOHVVGHYLFHVKDVLPSURYHG,7'¶V
ability to inventory and manage computers and other networked devices. However, the district
does not have an accurate inventory of computers and other technology in the schools.
Telephones: The telephone system was purchased in 1989 and is now obsolete. Most schools
are on Intertel systems, but two are on Simplex and two are on CISCO VoIP. The telephones
are on Centrex carrier service. The current implementation of Cisco VOIP is now end of life/end
of support, and is currently scheduled for an in-place upgrade to the latest version including a
complete hardware replacement. ITD is proposing Intertel as the platform for the migration of
additional school sites that are currently on very old legacy PBX systems.
26
Age of computers is based on the percentage of computers over 4 years of age identified by teachers in the District Teacher Technology
Survey. See 3H. page 13.
48 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Existing Internet Access: Because the district also serves as the COE, the district is a node site on
the K-12 High Speed Network (K12HSN), which serves as the district connection to the Internet. The
connection is currently one gig, but ITD is working with K12HSN to upgrade the service to two gig.
The district is the ISP not only for district schools, but also for the charter and non-public schools in
San Francisco.
Infrastructure: In April 2009 the district moved all servers from an inadequate rented facility to
a temperature controlled, secure facility in district headquarters. While doing so, the district
implemented virtualization technology that reduced the number of hardware servers by
approximately 60%, resulting in greatly reduced electrical consumption and cooling
requirements. Additional virtualization is planned for 2011-2014 to further reduce costs and
improve attention to Green initiatives by virtualizing additional hardware servers in the data
center and at school sites.
Based on district estimates, 95% of the instructional computers and all of the administrative
computers have a wired connection to the Internet. 100% of district computers will have
broadband connectivity by 2013. 49% of the teachers responding to the Teacher Technology
Survey or 1247 reported that their classrooms had wireless access.
In 2011, the district completed a major overhaul of its WAN, which increased bandwidth to
1Gbps for all elementary, middle, and high school sites as well as all administrative offices.
However, the local area networks (LANS) at the schools present the biggest hurdle to fast,
reliable connectivity. While a handful of school sites have independently funded partial upgrades
of the worst performing equipment, the majority of sites still require significant upgrades of
network equipment. Existing LAN hardware that was purchased with e-rate funding in 2006 is
now based on technology that is well over 5 years old, and that upgrade replaced only half of
WKHGLVWULFW¶VQHWZRUNHTXLSPHQWWKDWKDGEHHQSXUFKDVHG-6 years prior. This means that in
many cases the LAN equipment in a school is over a decade old.
Existing Electrical Wiring: Approximately 50% of the schools were re-wired from 2006 ± 2009
with funding from an earlier local bond measure. Proposition A was passed in November 2011
for $531 million for modernization that included electrical wiring of remaining sites and for
Americans with Disabilities Act compliance upgrades.
Existing Electronic Resources and Systems: The existing software and electronic resources
available for students and teachers was summarized in Component 3: Curriculum Charts 7 and 8
(pages 9 and 10). However, there is not an accurate inventory of software in use in the schools, nor
have standards for software been adopted.
The district has been systematically upgrading its central office management and financial systems
as well as the data systems described in the Curriculum Component. With funding from the 2008
Parcel Tax, the district has implemented Horizon, a point of sale software system for food services
and added enhancements in 2011-2012. Horizon enables anonymous free and reduced lunch
distribution, removing the stigmatization associated with accepting free or reduced lunches.
Historically underserved students now receive improved nutrition, which should lead to higher
achievement. Horizon gives the district the ability to streamline the processing of payments, collect
more meal fees, and comply with federal reporting requirements to enable greater reimbursement
rates. Horizon also improves free and reduced lunch data reporting for a range of categorical
programs, such as Title 1, and technology programs, such as the federal e-rate discount program.
The district uses PeopleSoft for HR and Finance functions. The HR software was last upgraded in
49 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
2003 and has been heavily customized to the point it is no longer upgradeable. The district is
currently evaluating options to upgrade the software to the latest version that will enable self- service
HR functions and online employee evaluations. The current finance system was upgraded in
November 2011. Business processes are currently being changed to take advantage of new
functionality, such as online purchase requisitions and invoice approvals. This reduces the time to
purchase supplies and make them available to students. The finance department is also looking at
acquiring a commercial budget software application to replace disparate budgeting applications
written in Excel and File Maker Pro. These business process changes will help streamline
administrative activities, freeing up resources for instruction.
Data Director, the data management system, was implemented in 2010 - 2012 to support data driven
decision-making. The district has invested heavily in professionally developing teachers to use Data
Director to inform instruction and to support Response to Intervention (RTI) strategies. It is also used
by elementary teachers for submitting grades for the standardized report cards.
7KHGLVWULFW¶VFXUUHQW6,6ZDVGHYHORSHGE\WKHGLVWULFWEXWQRORQJHUKDVWKHIXQFWLRQDOLW\WRKDQGOH
new state reporting requirePHQWVLQFOXGLQJWKHVWDWH¶V&DO3$'627 DQGWKHGLVWULFW¶VVWXGHQWGDWD
needs, nor can it be bridged to other legacy or newly deployed data systems. Special Education
currently uses SEIS for IEPs and student data, a stand-alone software application that has been
integrated with the district SIS.
Last year the district rolled out a new public district website focused on the community, and
information targeted to employees was moved to the district intranet. The district intranet is hosted
within Sharepoint, which was initiated in 2003. Utilization has grown from 150 regular users in 2009
to over 1,000 users a day or 3500 in a 30 day period in the spring of 2011. In addition the ITD
supports School Loop, the teacher, parent and student portal that is also used by secondary teachers
for grade submission.
To manage the growing number of laptop computers, the district has Computrace, a web-based
computer tracking system, standard on each laptop. Not only can laptops be traced, but hard
drives can be wiped remotely to protect against the loss of sensitive student and employee data.
The antivirus program, Kaspersky, is installed on 98% on the computers meets CIPA
UHTXLUHPHQWVDQGDORQJZLWK0LFURVRIW¶VCCN for PCs and Casper Suite for MACS, gives the
ITD robust computer management and inventory tools. With the completion of the WAN
upgrade, most computer management tasks can now be handled remotely to increase
efficiencies and reduce technical support.
Other projects to be completed by the end of 2012 include an upgrade to the email system
along with a campaign to require all staff to use district email for school related communications.
Existing Technical Support: The IT Department is responsible for the management and support of
the technology architecture, hardware, software and the technology support systems throughout the
district and the COE. It is organized into five main divisions: Administration, Infrastructure,
Applications, Support and Services. With infusion of Proposition A funds, the department has been
able to add school support staff and trainers. There are now thirty desktop support, network support,
server support, and telecom technicians and two trainers. In addition ITD contracts for telecom
services for moves, adds and changes for move. ITD responded to 10,984 service requests in 20102011.
27
CalPADS = the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System
50 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
All hardware purchases and donations, including computers, are processed centrally at the
Technology Resource Center, which enables the district to better monitor assets purchased by the
district and individual schools as well as donated computers.
Several contractual agreements supplement ,7'VHUYLFHV2PQL3URWKHGLVWULFW¶V+3VXSSOLHU
posts HP PC standards on its web site for SFUSD, and images and sets up all new PCs. Crest, the
district¶s Macintosh supplier, provides imaging and set up services for Macintosh computers. To
improve the deployment of interactive whiteboards the district has standardized on Prometheans and
UHTXLUHVDOOVFKRROVWRXWLOL]HWKHGLVWULFW¶VFRQWUDFWRUIRr installation.
5B. HARDWARE, INTERNET ACCESS, ELECTRONIC RESOURCES AND TECHNICAL
SUPPORT NEEDED TO SUPPORT CURRICULUM AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
(Describe the technology hardware, electronic learning resources, networking and
telecommunications infrastructure, physical plant modifications, and technical support needed by the
GLVWULFW¶VWHDFKHUVVWXGHQWVDQGDGPLQLVWUDWRUVWRVXSSRUWWKHDFWLYLWLHVLQWKH&XUULFXOXPDQG
Professional Development Components of the plan.)
Hardware - Increasing Student and Teacher Access to Technology: The Technology Plan
FDOOVIRUWKHGHSOR\PHQWRYHUWLPHRIDVWDQGDUGL]HG³&RUH&ODVVURRP7HFKQRORJ\6XLWH´WR
every classroom in the district. The standards for the core curriculum technology suite will be
developed in year 1, but it will include:
x
x
x
x
x
Computing device for the teacher
Computing devices less than five years of age for students.
A common suite of productivity tools
Broadband Internet connectivity
Presentation technology
This standardization of classrooms will not only bring the overall ratio of student to computing
device down to a minimum of five to one over time, but it will give all students access to the a
standard set of tools that support 21st century learning and enable more effective curriculum and
professional development built around a common set of tools.
However, this is an ambitious goal, especially in light of the predominance of aging classroom
technology and diminishing and uncertain education budgets. While the actual costs of meeting
this goal district wide can be projected only after the completion of the district audit of available
classroom technology, the Teacher Technology Survey provides some benchmark data. The
cost of providing a current laptop to the approximately 3,529 teachers would be $4.1 million for
HP laptops or $5.9 million for Macintosh laptops. A very conservative estimate of equipping a
classroom with the core classroom technology suite (without the teacher laptops or network
costs) would be $8,000. Therefore, the Technology Plan proposes to phase in the core
classroom technology suite over time, working with school sites and departments to direct
available technology funds towards this goal prior to acquiring other instructional technologies.
Infrastructure: Capacity Building: The district has undertaken a multi-stage upgrade to
provide the infrastructure and the bandwidth to support curriculum and professional
development goals, such as video streaming, virtual classrooms, video conferencing, online
video tutorials, and access to a wide range of online and multimedia applications in addition to
WKHGLVWULFW¶VLQFUHDVLQJUHOLDQFHRQGLVWULFWZLGHWHFKQRORJLHV
51 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Chart 27. Vision for Information Technology for SFUSD/SFCOE
2010-2011
-
Foundational
Development
Data Center
Virtualization
WAN
Capacity
Building
School LANs
- -
Expanded
Access
Culture of
Empowerment
Wireless Access
Cloud Computing
Multiple Smart
Network Devices
³%ULQJ\RXURZQ'HYLFH´
Expanding Centralized Network Management
Hands-on Desktop Support
Tiered Desktop Support
Building on the completion of the WAN upgrade that provides Internet access and connectivity
to the data center for district provided resources, the next steps for 2012-2015 are:
x
Local Area Networks ± Broadband to the Classroom: In the final leg of the
infrastructure upgrade, the Broadband to the Classroom project intends to replace
school site LAN switching hardware to support 1Gbps access layer ports for all
computers. Also, in data closets that may support future devices requiring PoE (Power
over Ethernet) for services such as VOIP or wireless access points, a network switch
capable of providing this power through the data port will be supplied.
x
Internet Connection ± District to the K-12 HSN: With the anticipated completion of
WAN & LAN bandwidth upgrade projects, the district anticipates demands on Internet
bandwidth increasing as well. In 2012-2013, the district will request an additional 1Gbps
fiber connection for increasing bandwidth to a total of 2Gbps throughput to meet
increased usage demands.
x
Data Center Virtualization: The 2009 virtualization project having proven to be a
tremendous success, the district intends to continue migration of remaining hardware
servers to this virtualization technology platform as well as expanding its use to any new
servers that will be needed in the future.
x
Centralized Storage: The Fiber WAN project enabled higher speed connections to the
districW¶VGDWDFHQWHU,7'LVHYDOXDWLQJFHQWUDOL]LQJVWRUDJHIURPVLWHEDVHGVHUYHUVWR
the data center to improve reliability and access to data. ITD is reviewing its centralized
storage requirements and replacing its backup system from a tape system to a disk
based de-duplication system.
x
Wireless Classroom Connections: Once the upgrade of school site LAN equipment is
completed, the final layer of network access will be the extension of the district network
and Internet access to wireless network in support of mobile/non-tethered computing.
This is currently unfunded and will require significant site assessments to properly map
the required hardware and cabling needed to install wireless access points through
school sites. This is a goal for 2013-2014. While many sites already have some limited
wireless access, the coverage is disparate, not always reliable, and has been site-
52 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
funded resulting in the use of many independent non-standard technologies which
makes central administration extremely problematic. Providing ubiquitous
comprehensive coverage will likely include the replacement of much of the legacy
wireless infrastructure as well.
x
Network Environment Monitoring and Proactive Support: With the rapid increase in
adoption of online technology throughout the district not only for business critical
administration services, but most notably for teaching and learning in classrooms, the
reliability of network access becomes as critical as electrical power itself. To ensure these services are reliably accessible, the district central support staff will
require the tools to monitor, audit and report out the status of all network devices in real
time and receive automated alerts to immediately respond to any possible service
issues. Such a system will require new software and hardware tools to help proactively
address impending problems as well as quickly troubleshoot and resolve any system
failures to minimize the impact on teaching and learning as well as on daily
administration business
Electronic Systems: ITD is in the process of deploying a suite of applications to support data
driven decision-making, improve systems management, reduce costs and improve
communications increase revenues:
x
Student Information System: Synergy, selected in 2012 after an extensive review
process to replace the current district-developed SIS, will be phased in over the next
three years, starting with data cleanup and conversion and researching the interfaces
with other applications, such as School Loop, Data Director, Horizon, FAST, and
PeopleSoft, in 2012-13. Some features of Synergy will have to be customized to
DGGUHVV6)86'¶VUHTXLUHPHQWV)RUH[DPSOH6)86'¶VXQLTXHFHQWUDOL]HGHQUROOPHQW
procedures require customization of the SIS. Training will begin with primary SIS users
when Master Scheduling, enrollment, transcripts, report cards and health and behavior
functions are in place in 2012-13. Training will be extended to teachers in 2013-14.
x
Special Education SIS: SFUSD has migrated from Goalview to the web-based Special
Education Information System (SEIS), which will improve data quality and compliance
with IDEA 1997 and enabled the integration of special education information into the
GLVWULFW¶VQHZ6,6Ior the first time. This is an integral part of the re-design plan of Special
Education for the next three years.
x
Early Education SIS: As part of the Early Education re-design, Early Education will use
the current district-developed CATS SIS during the first two years, but will migrate to
Synergy by year three or four to eliminate the paper reporting and to accommodate the
(DUO\(GXFDWLRQ¶VPRYHWRFHQWUDOL]HGHQUROOPHQWDQGWKHVKLIWIURPFKLOGGHYHORSPHQW
centers to Pre-K programs.
x
Data Management System: Training and support of administrators and teachers in the
use of Data Director will continue over the next three years. Major focus during this time
is the improvement in data quality, adding more resources and reports into the system
and preparation for the adoption of the new state online testing program, SMARTER
Balanced that will replace the CSTs.
x
School Loop: ITD will continue to provide training and support for School Loop, to
include instructor-led sessions, video tutorials differentiated by technical skill level, open
house drop-in sessions, webinars and direct phone support. One teacher per site will
53 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
receive a stipend to serve as the on-site coordinator for School Loop. However, the
system is essentially in place, and major work over the next three years will focus on
increasing awareness, teacher training and family registrations, especially at the
elementary levels in years one and two.
x
Peoplesoft and FAST: ITD has upgraded Peoplesoft for the first time in nine years to
improve data quality and accessibility and to improve accounting procedures and
security. The FAST or Financial Accounting Systems Transformed project will improve
the process for paying vendors and streamline business processes in the district. Over
the next year the FAST system will be rolled out, with staff receiving a system ID once
they complete training. The issue of creating the bridges between Peoplesoft, FAST and
other applications (Synergy, SEIS, etc.) will be addressed in years two and three.
x
E-mail Upgrade: To accommodate a growth of about 15% per month, ITD will upgrade
the e-mail servers and software. The district is implementing a campaign to encourage
all employees to use district email for school related communications.
x
District Website and Intranet: ITD will continue to improve navigation, content
organization and build the workflows and applications to make Sharepoint an employee
portal. Greater accessibility includes Forms Central for all district forms, on-line KResos, Payroll Error Forms and Grant Management to encourage greater utilization.
Technical Support: ITD added support staff in 2010-2011, although several positions are
unfilled in 2012. The department is implementing a support team improvement process and
clarifying roles and relationships within ITD and between ITD and other departments. ITD will
pilot new models of phone and online support for networked computers and other devices to
eliminate travel time and improve response time. To accomplish this, ITD has deployed online
centralized network management tools and must ensure all computers are configured in a
standard way.
7KHFRPSOHWLRQRIWKH³%URDGEDQGWRWKH&ODVVURRP´SURMHFWZLOOSHUPLWDFULWLFDOVKLIWLQKRZ
technical support is provided and improve the ability of the ITD to support the increasing
³FRQVXPHUL]DWLRQRIWHFKQRORJ\´DVWHDFKHUVEULQJWKHLURZQHTXLSPHQWLQWRWKHFODVVURRP
Plans include:
1. 7KHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKH³SULYDWH´FORXGWHFKQRORJ\WHDFKHUVDQGstudents will be able
to save all files to and access all resources from the cloud. This will allow ITD to swap
out computer devices and free ITD from the imaging of new technology and the specter
of lost files when a computer breaks down.
2. There is now a single log on to access district resources if the end-user has a district
purchased and district imaged computer with Outlook. ITD will research and pilot
software that requires no imaging and supports any browser.
3. These changes will allow ITD to adopt a three tiered support model:
a. &RQWLQXHG³VQHDNHU´VXSSRUWZKHUH,7'VWDIIJRHVWRVLWHZKHQWKHUHLVD
technology failure.
b. Central Desktop Support where support staff can dial into a device and resolve
the issue, since most current problems are software based.
54 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
c. Support for personal hardware that would allow end-users to securely connect
personal devices to the network and access district resources, but ITD would not
support the device in case of an equipment failure.
5C. BENCHMARKS
AND TIMELINE: (List of clear annual benchmarks and a timeline for
obtaining the hardware, infrastructure, learning resources and technical support required to
support the other plan components as identified in Section 5b.)
5C1. Hardware
(IN SUPPORT OF CURRICULUM GOALS 3 H.1: APPROPRIATE ACCESS BY ALL STUDENTS AND
TEACHERS AND 4B1-2: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT)
5C1 Hardware Benchmarks and Timeline
By June 30, 2013 30% of the classroom teachers will have a district purchased laptop.
By June 30, 2014 60% of the classroom teachers will have a district purchased laptop.
By June 30, 2015 90% of the classroom teachers will have a district purchased laptop.
By June 30, 2013 15% of the instructional rooms, including classrooms, labs and library
media centers, will be equipped with the up-to-date Core Classroom Technology Suite.
By June 30, 2014 30% of the instructional rooms, including classrooms, labs and library
media centers, will be equipped with the Core Classroom Technology Suite.
By June 30, 2015 45% of the instructional rooms, including classrooms, labs and library
media centers, will be equipped with the Core Classroom Technology Suite.
Implementation Plan
Year
Person responsible: Assoc. Superintendent, C & I; CTO/ITD; Principals
1. Define and complete standards for the Core Classroom Technology Suite
for the classroom, library/media center and school as a whole and
establish annual standards for the hardware.
1
2. Complete the on-site inventory of district provided teacher laptops and
classroom computers and other hardware to establish school needs to
meet the Core Classroom Technology Suite.
1
3. In coordination with site principals develop a plan to implement the 1:1
teacher laptop goal over a three year period.
1
4. &RRUGLQDWHZLWKWKH6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V=RQH schools ensure that each
classroom has the Core Classroom Technology Suite.
1-3
5. Conduct outreach to schools and departments regarding the benefits of a
standardized suite of technology for teaching and learning.
2-3
6. Continue to post detailed specifications for instructional technology on the
district Intranet website to create purchasing quotes that meet district and
purchasing standards.
1-3
55 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
7. Review all school and department technology purchases by ITD to
ensure consistency with the Core Classroom Technology Suite and
current standards.
1-3
8. Work with site principals to adopt a computer replacement policy and
develop a plan to phase out computers over four years of age.
2-3
(IN SUPPORT OF CURRICULUM GOALS 3 H.1: APPROPRIATE ACCESS BY ALL STUDENTS AND
TEACHERS AND 4B1-2: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.)
5C. Infrastructure
5C2.1 Internet Access Benchmarks and Timeline
By June 30, 2013 100 % of the instructional rooms will have a 2 gig/second Internet
connection through the California High Speed K-12 Network (K-12 HSN).
By June 30, 2014 100 % of the instructional rooms will have a 2 gig/second Internet
connection through K-12 HSN.
By June 30, 2015 100 % of the instructional rooms will have a 2 gig/second Internet
connection through K-12 HSN.
5C2.2 Network Benchmarks and Timeline
%\-XQH,7'ZLOOUHSODFHRIWKHVFKRROVLWHV¶/$1VZLWFKLQJKDUGZDUHWR
support 1 Gbps access layer ports for all computers.
%\-XQH,7'ZLOOUHSODFHRIWKHVFKRROVLWHV¶/$1VZLWFKLQJKDUGZDUHWR
support 1 Gbps access layer ports for all computers.
By June 30, 2015 ITD will complete server virtualization and support private cloud storage for
staff and students.
Implementation Plan
Person responsible: CTO/ITD
Year
1. Through K-12 HSN increase the bandwidth of the Internet connection to 2
gig/second.
1
2. Complete the walk-throughs of all schools to determine LAN hardware upgrade
QHHGVDQGWKHVWDWXVRIWKHVLWH¶VZLUHOHVVQHWZRUNFDSDELOLWLHV
1
3. Develop a schedule for the LAN upgrade
1
4. Complete the upgrade of the school LANs
1-2
5. Deploy wireless access points for the Horizon point of sale system in each
VLWH¶VFDIHWHULDORFDWLRQ
1-2
6. Develop a plan and schedule for additional wireless roll-out
3
7. Continue to migrate remaining hardware servers to the virtualization
technology platform and expand to future new servers.
2-3
8. Continue to deploy remote management applications to include necessary
security systems, security instruction detection, and remote desktop
2-3
56 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
management.
9. Support private cloud storage for administrators, teachers and students.
3
5C3. ELECTRONIC LEARNING AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT RESOURCES
(IN SUPPORT OF CURRICULUM GOALS 3H: EQUITABLE TECHNOLOGY ACCESS; 3I1. STUDENT
RECORD KEEPING AND ASSESSMENT AND 4B4: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT)
5C3.1 Data Director Benchmarks and Timeline
By June 30, 2013 RPA will add ELA CLA performance assessments into Data Director
and bridge Data Director to Synergy SIS.
By June 30, 2014 RPA and C & I will integrate a rich array of instructional resources into
Data Director to help teachers develop instructional strategies in response to specific
formative assessment results.
By June 30, 2015 RPA will make necessary modifications to Data Director in anticipation
RIWKHVWDWH¶VQHZRQOLQH60$57(5%DODQFHGDVVHVVPHQWUHVXOWVLQWRData Director.
5C3.2 Student Data Redesign Project Benchmarks and Timeline
By June 30, 2013 implement Synergy and SEIS.
By June 30, 2014 complete the bridging between Synergy and electronic systems that
rely on student data.
By June 30, 2015 complete the Student Data Redesign project.
5C3.3. Program Management Benchmarks and Timeline
By June 30, 2013 implement the online FAST accounting system and identify program
management systems for Early Education and Student Services to monitor service
providers; track student enrollment, participation and progress; improve revenue streams
and ensure program compliance.
By June 30, 2014 implement the program management systems for Early Education and
Student Services.
By June 30, 2015 migrate from CATS to Synergy for Early Education.
Implementation Plan
Year
Persons responsible: Assoc. Superintendent, RPA; CTO/ITD; Asst.
Superintendents Student Services and Early Education
1. Continue to address the issue of data quality and identify sources of error and
multiple data entry points.
1
2. Add ELA CLA performance assessment data and reports into Data Director
1
3. Add instructional resources into Data Director that give teachers tools, strategies
and guidance to address specific student gaps identified in formative assessment
results.
2-3
4. Develop a plan to address the roll-out of SMARTER Balanced
1-2
5. Complete the data clean-up and data conversion for Synergy.
1
57 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
6. Customize Synergy as needed to address functions unique to SFUSD and
COE, such as centralized enrollment.
1
7. Rollout master scheduling, enrollment, transcripts, report cards and health and
behavior modules in Synergy
1-2
8. Complete the rebuild of the interfaces between Synergy and all other electronic
data and management systems that rely on student information data.
2-3
9. Complete the migration of Early Education SIS from CATS to Synergy.
3
10. Research and pilot program management systems for Early Education and
Student Services.
1
11. Bring program management systems up to scale for Early Education and
Student Services.
2-3
12. Add online attendance tracking module in Synergy.
3
5C4. Technical Support :
(IN SUPPORT OF ALL CURRICULUM AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS)
Technical Support Benchmarks
By June 30, 2013 the online system management tools and standardized configuration
system will be fully operational.
By June 30, 2014 the phone and online support system will be implemented.
By June 30, 2015 the tiered technical support and training system will be fully
operational.
Implementation Plan
Person responsible: Executive Director, RPA, CTO/ITD
Year
1. Continue contract with OmniPro or comparable organization for the configuration,
imaging and set-up of PCs,
1-3
2. Continue contract with Crest to configure, image and setup MACs.
1-3
3. Review service requests and develop FAQs and tutorials for posting on the ITD
Sharepoint web site.
1-2
4. Develop and pilot plan for phone and on-line support system.
1
5. Fully implement the phone and on-line support system.
2-3
6. Develop the tiers of technical support options to potentially include basic
technology training, webinars, canned training delivered through video-streaming,
and support for teacher user groups ± peer to peer support.
3
7. (See deployment of the centralized, remote network and hardware management
systems to reduce technical support costs ± 5C1. Above)
2-3
5D. MONITORING AND EVALUATION: (5d. Describe the process that will be used to monitor
Section 5b & the annual benchmarks and timeline of activities including roles and responsibilities.)
58 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Process to Monitor: The process to monitor implementation of the Infrastructure, Hardware,
Electronic Resources, Technical Support and Software Component will be the same as described in
the Curriculum Component (page 31). The CTO and other representatives from ITD serve on ITAG,
DQGWKH&72LVUHVSRQVLEOHQRWRQO\IRU,7'¶VFRPSOHWLRQRIFRPSRQHQWVRIWKH7HFKQRORJ\3ODQEXW
also for serving as the liaison with the Academic Cabinet and reporting to the Board of Education.
Evaluation Instruments & Data To Be Collected
Vendor Reports
x Network vendor¶s reports on contract deliverables
Network Management Systems
x Network utilization
x Status and use of networked computers, accessories and software
x Security intrusions and resolutions
x AUP and security policy violations
School Loop Statistics
x Registered students, teachers, administrators and households
x Utilization patterns
Data Director Statistics
x Student progress
x Utilization patterns
Teacher and Principal Technology Surveys
x Identification of infrastructure, hardware, electronic resources and
technical support needs.
Technology Installation Logs
x Deployment of the hardware, software, infrastructure
Service Request System
x Type of service requests
x Service response times by type of service requested, by school, etc.
x Technician response time
Frequency
Collection
Monthly
of
Ongoing
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annually
Quarterly
Monthly
COMPONENT 6 ± BUDGET
INTRODUCTION
An estimated annual budget for the next three years developed for the Technology Plan is
based on current conditions and cannot anticipate:
x
Changes in federal and state funding for education in general and for technology in
particular.
59 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
x
x
x
x
Cost increases and/or savings for the Core Classroom Technology Suite that might
result from emerging technologies.
Savings that will result from the upgraded infrastructure and improved network and
hardware management systems.
The impact of improved coordination within the district in funding for technology from the
multiple district and site based funds.
Changes in the schedule for deployment of technology that result from modifications in
the implementation of the Strategic Plan.
The plan is a strategic document, and an annual implementation plan and budget will be
developed based on available resources and progress made in the previous year. Therefore,
these budget estimates serve as targets, but should not be the basis for annual decisionmaking.
The actual costs for the Technology Plan are approximately $20 million a year. While the
general fund, e-rate, the California Technology Fund (CTF) and the parcel tax/Prop A passed in
2009 will continue to support technology over the next three years, other major sources of
technology funding will not be available after 2011-2012. Therefore, the coordination among the
departments and schools for the planning for, acquisition of and support for technology and the
cost savings anticipated from the network upgrades are critical to the implementation of this
plan. However, the district will also have to look to partnerships, grants and other additional
support to ensure the plan can be implemented as proposed.
Historically, there has been little coordination among the central office departments and school
sites regarding technology acquisition. And rarely has technology purchases by school sites or
individual departments included funding for deployment, security, maintenance, technical
support, professional development or replacement. In addition, there is limited funding
dedicated to technology, and, therefore, support for technology must be cobbled together from
different sources: general purpose, categorical, and one-time and grant funds. Much of this
funding is tied to specific populations of students. All of these factors complicate the
deployment of a coherent technology program.
These factors form a strong argument for a common vision for technology in the schools and a
process to coordinate funding for technology to support district wide as well as individual site
needs. The Strategic Plan, supplemented by this Technology Master Plan, provides that vision.
6A. ESTABLISHED AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES AND COST SAVINGS: (6a.
List established and potential funding sources.)
The major sources of current funding for technology are:
x
Informational Technology Services ± General Fund: The GF provides the $9 million
operating budget for ITD to support infrastructure, support services and training,
licenses, fixed maintenance, service fees, project management and business
applications.
x
Infrastructure and Tele-communications Services - E-Rate and CTF: ITD submitted
e-rate applications for $4,080,000 for the WAN upgrade and telecommunications
60 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
services for 2010-2011 and for $3.7 million for ongoing services 2011-2012. E-rate
applications for the next two years are anticipated to remain the same for ongoing
services. No priority two services are anticipated for 2012-14.
x
Informational Technology Services ± Miscellaneous State Funding: The Targeted
Instructional Improvement grant of $7780,000 funds 6 FTEs. A one-time grant of
$500,000 funded CSIS and CalPADS migration.
x
Infrastructure ± Prop A/Parcel Tax: The parcel tax provided funding for the upgrade of
the wide area network, completed in 2010, and will continue to provide between $3.7
and $4.2 million a year for technology. This funding will provide a baseline of funding for
the upgrade RIWKHORFDODUHDQHWZRUNV³%URDGEDQGWRWKH&ODVVURRP´WKDWZLOOLQFOXGH
some level of wireless support ($1.5 million) and the development of a district based or
private ³FORXG´ service, maintenance and technical support, and the deployment of more
centralized network management tools.
x
Hardware ± Site and Categorical Funding: Sites are responsible for the acquisition
and replacement of computers and other hardware used by students and teachers
through their Weighted Student Formula (WSF) allocation. In addition categorical funds
are also used to acquire hardware for designated students and teachers.
x
Hardware ±-Donations: ITD established the Technical Resource Center in 2010 to
collect and refurbish PCs, printers, LCDs, network equipment and reclaimed cables.
With donation policies and standards in place, the TRC has enabled the district to
significantly expand hardware for school site projects.
x
Teaching and Learning ± School Improvement Grant (SIG): The district is in the
second year of a three-year, $45 million School Improvement Grant to improve student
learning in ten high-needs schools. Schools are using a portion of these funds to
acquire computing devices, projections systems, electronic resources and other
peripherals.
x
Teaching and Learning - EETT Formula: In 2010-2011 the district and COE received
$50,509 from EETT Formula funds, down from $373,817 in 2007-08. EETT Formula
funds have been used to fund two additional desktop technicians to service the schools,
a teacher on special assignment for professional development, substitutes and stipends
for professional development, travel to conferences, and contract services for technology
planning and professional development support. These funds are no longer available.
x
Teaching and Learning ± EETT Competitive: C & I received $617,400 in 2009-2011
to deploy the Core Classroom Technology Suites in twenty classrooms in fourteen
schools and to provide professional development. In 2010 C & I and SFCOE were
awarded an additional EETT ARRA grant for $1 million that was used for instructional
technology and professional development in eight schools plus the extension of the Plan
Ahead College and Career Curriculum in coordination with Pearson Foundation and the
GAP and to implement a truancy SUHYHQWLRQ³(DUO\:DUQLQJ6\VWHP´ These funds were
expended 2011.
x
Teaching and Learning ± California Mathematics and Science Partnership
(CaMSP): The district was awarded $931,145 in 2008-2010 for teacher laptops and
61 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
digital still and video cameras and professional development that integrated technology
into the science curriculum. The district has re-applied for funding.
x
Teaching and Learning ± Government Entities and K-12 Voucher: The district and
COE was awarded $2.6 million in round one and another $280,130 in the second round
of the K-12 Voucher program that has been used to fund full computer labs in all
secondary schools and to purchase district licenses of electronic resources, including
NetTrekker, Discovery Streaming, and Microsoft Office. These funds will be expended
by the end of the 2012 school year.
x
Teaching and Learning - California Technology Assistance Program: The California
Technology Assistance Project (CTAP) is funded through the CDE to provide
professional development and technical support for educational technology. The seven
bay area counties voted to formally disband CTAP Region 4 in 2009 and assigned the
essential CTAP services to a staff member in each of the seven counties. The
Supervisor for Educational Technology is the CTAP service provider for the SFCOE.
x
Teaching and Learning ± Prop 20/Lottery Funds: $1.7 million was allocated to the
COE and the district for 2011-12. These funds are used for state-approved instructional
materials, including software and other electronic resources.
x
Library Services ± School Improvement Grant and PEEF: In 2005 the state Library
Materials Program was combined with the School Improvement Block Grant. In 2011-12
the School and Library Improvement Block Grant apportionment is projected to be
$3,708,081 for SFUSD and SFCOE.
The Public Education Enrichment Fund or PEEF (formerly Proposition H) was approved
in 2005-06 and runs through 2015 to support a range of enrichment services, including
libraries. PEEF now funds site librarians and central support staff, and online databases
and services.
Centrally these funds are used for library databases, such as NetTrekker, Facts on File,
)HUJXVRQ¶V&DUHHUV, and Teaching Books, and for catalog and circulation software. The
majority of the funds are allocated to school sites based on a size formula. These funds
are also used to replace library computers, printers and presentation technology.
x
Career Technical Education ± Perkins, Regional Occupational Program (ROP and
PEEF): School-to-Career/ROP received $380,802 for the CTE/ROP Consortium in 201112. Perkins is authorized through 2012. In addition ROP generated $3,000 per
participant between the ages of 16-18.
x
Assistive Technology (AT ± IDEA): The state mandates the inclusion of AT as part of
a student Individualize Instructional Plan (IDEA Part B, 1997). Districts receive weighted
formula funds through the state that is allocated to the sites to acquire AT. The district
receives $30,000 for AT, which is allocated to students on a first come, first serve basis
with the balance of the funds allocated to schools based on SPED enrollment. The
maximum amount available to any one school is $3000. Special Education has provided
laptops and netbooks for Special Education teachers in the past.
62 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
x
Data and Assessment Funding: PEEF funded the acquisition and implementation of
the data system, Data Director. CSIS and General Funds were used to acquire the
Synergy SIS, while IDEA funded the Special Education SIS (SEIS).
x
Professional Development ± Other State and Federal Funding: In addition to EETT
formula that supports technology related professional development, all divisions of the
Curriculum and Instruction Department offer professional development that is funded
through a wide variety of sources, including Titles I, II, and V, AB 466, SB 472, EIASCE/LEP funds and Teacher Credentialing Block Grant (TCBG) funds. Currently,
technology is not a major component of the professional development funded through
these programs. The Technology Plan proposes to leverage these resources by having
teams of technology integration specialists and content specialists co-plan and cofacilitate professional development.
Anticipated Funding: The Technology Master Plan budget anticipates that the following
funding will continue to be available to support the Technology Plan: General Fund, Parcel Tax,
e-Rate, California Telecommunications Fund, IDEA, School Improvement Block grants,
Proposition 20 lottery funds, PEEF from the City, and various categorical funds that are used to
acquire technology for designated programs. A $3 million grant from Bechtel Foundation will
support implementation of the Core Curriculum for mathematics. ³Bridge to Success´ is
providing funding for College Career Readiness that has a technology component. Hardware
donations will continue. EETT Competitive and Formula programs, however, ended September
2011, and replacement programs have not been announced. Re-authorization of the Career
Technical Education/Perkins Act may occur in 2012-13, although its future is uncertain. The
district has re-applied for an MSP professional development grant for mathematics and science.
Potential New Funding Sources: SFUSD will closely follow the availability of any other state
or local funding options during the next three years, and expand on its current strategic
partnerships. As discussed earlier, the district will also align technology resources with the
Technology Plan. Implementation of the FAST financial system will give ITD additional tools to
coordinate infrastructure and hardware decisions at the site and department levels.
Cost Savings and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): The district is continuing to implement steps
that will lead to cost savings, including:
x
Completion of the network upgrade to improve service and lay the groundwork for other
cost savings outline below.
x
x
Migrating to web-based electronic resources wherever possible.
x
Creation of a diVWULFW³FORXG´IRUFHQWUDOL]HGVWRUDJHRIILOHVGLVWULEXWLRQRIHOHFWURQLF
resources and reduction of maintenance and lower replacement costs for hardware.
x
Establishment of standards for the Core Classroom Technology Suite to ensure equitable
access to the tools of learning, reduce technical support and focus professional
development.
x
x
x
Enforcing technology donation policies.
Centralizing infrastructure, hardware and applications management functions using online
tools.
Partnering with strategic vendors to offload installation, maintenance and repair services.
Mandating a minimum of three year, on-site service warranties.
63 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
6B. ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS: (6C. Estimate annual implementation costs
for the term of the plan.)
Please see pages 65-67 for the estimated annual implementation costs for FYE 2013-2015. Costs
over the three years will not vary dramatically, since the LAN upgrade is being purchased in 2012,
and staffing is anticipated to remain at 2011-12 levels through the completion of the infrastructure
upgrade in 2015. The budgets reflect the following plan costs:
1. IT department budget, which includes the following major categories (Funded)
a. Certificated and classified salaries and benefits for:
i.
Infrastructure support (Network management, telecommunications, server
operations)
ii.
Applications support (School Loop, web communications,
Peoplesoft/business applications, Synergy, Document Publishing and
Distribution)
iii.
Support services (Desktop support, educational technology/C & I,
CALPADS/compliance reporting, project management, ERate and
infrastructure improvements)
iv.
Project management (Student data redesign project, FAST, Sharepoint,
education technology plan)
b. Non-capitalized equipment (hardware and supplies for equipment replacement, LAN
hardware and cabling, etc.)
c. Repair and maintenance (hardware and supplies for maintenance, including
desktops, servers, etc.)
d. Other services and other expenses (Acquisition and annual fees for software,
including Synergy, School Loop, Sharepoint upgrade, enterprise software, and
Internet access fees)
2. District funded research databases (Library and Media Services - Funded)
3. Data Director development and support (Research, Planning and Assessment - Funded)
4. SEIS (Special Education ± Funded)
5. Supervisor of Educational Technology and one TSA (C & I - Funded)
6. Contracts for additional technology integration specialists (Unfunded - Possible grants)
7. Stipends or extended pay for Technology Lead Teachers and Technology Integration
Teachers. (Unfunded - Possible grants)
8. Projected costs for phasing in the teacher laptops and the Core Classroom Technology
Suite. (Unfunded ± School site budgets, possible grants)
Under the proposed professional development model for embedding technology integration in the
development and professional development of the core curriculum:
1. The level of funding required will depend on the scope of the pilot efforts in years 1-3.
2. Stipends and other teacher support will come from existing professional development
budgets in C & I and other departments and are not reflected here as a budget item for
the technology plan.
64 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Total
Master Plan for Instructional Technology: Projected Budget 2012-2013
Existing Funding
Category
GF
TII
Parcel Tax
CTAP
PEEF/Library
Improvement
Grant
Unfunded Balance
Other
Unfunded
Balance
Potential Source
Support for Curriculum Integration
Supervisor, Instructional Technology
120,000
1
320,000
320,000 Title I, II; Grants
Stipends: 50 Technology Lead Teachers
50,000
50,000 Title I, II; Grants
Technology Integration Specialists
120,000
0
Professional Development and Training
ITD Staff Training
30,000
ITD Travel and Conferences
40,000
30,000
0
40,000
0
Technical Support & Operations
Certificated Salaries
153,020
19,346
133,674
0
Classified Salaries
6,513,823
3,873,872
Benefits
3,207,327
1,737,226
515,066
2,124,885
0
265,005
1,205,096
Consultants
Other Services & Other Expenses
Other Supplies, Printing, Postage
194,500
1,161,013
158,000
114,500
893,700
158,000
0
80,000
267,313
0
0
0
Non-capitalized Equipment
989,103
130,000
Mileage & Travel
5,500
5,500
0
859,103
0
Misc. Construction Costs
14,525
14,525
0
Telephone
1,657,520
1,657,520
0
District Software Licenses
SEIS
55,000
Library Databases
700,000
Data Director
267,000
Key Projects
Teacher Laptop Program (30% of
teachers @ year)
3,862,800
Assistive Technologies
100,000
20,564,831
0 IDEA
0
267,000
0 RPA
100,000
SIG Zone Grant; other
grants
SIG Zone Grant; other
3,862,800
grants
0 IDEA
422,000
5,198,500
965,700
965,700
Classroom Suite (15% @ year)
TOTAL 2012-2013
55,000
700,000
8,634,189
1,679,174
3,810,968
120,000
700,000
1. Estimated cost for 4 full-­‐time TSAs. Costs could be reduced through contract services or PT teachers reimbursed through stipends or extended pay.
65 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Total
Master Plan for Instructional Technology: Projected Budget 2013-2014
Existing Funding
Category
GF
TII
Parcel Tax
CTAP
PEEF/Library
Improvement
Grant
Unfunded Balance
Other
Unfunded
Balance
Potential Source
Support for Curriculum Integration
Supervisor, Instructional Technology
120,000
1
320,000
320,000 Title I, II; Grants
Stipends: 100 Technology Lead Teachers
100,000
100,000 Title I, II; Grants
Technology Integration Specialists
Stipends: 20 Technology Integration
Teachers
120,000
0
20,000
20000
Title I, II; Grants
Professional Development and Training
ITD Staff Training
30,000
ITD Travel and Conferences
40,000
30,000
0
40,000
0
Technical Support & Operations
Certificated Salaries
153,020
19,346
133,674
0
Classified Salaries
6,513,823
3,873,872
515,066
2,124,885
0
Benefits
3,207,327
1,737,226
265,005
1,205,096
0
Consultants
194,500
114,500
80,000
0
Other Services & Other Expenses
1,161,013
893,700
267,313
0
Other Supplies, Printing, Postage
158,000
158,000
Non-capitalized Equipment
989,103
130,000
Mileage & Travel
5,500
5,500
0
0
859,103
0
Misc. Construction Costs
14,525
14,525
0
Telephone
1,657,520
1,657,520
0
District Software Licenses
SEIS
55,000
Library Databases
700,000
Data Director
267,000
Teacher Laptop Program (30% of
teachers @ year)
965,700
Classroom Suite (15% @ year)
3,862,800
55,000
700,000
0 IDEA
0
267,000
0 RPA
Key Projects
Assistive Technologies
TOTAL 2013-14
SIG Zone Grant; other
grants
SIG Zone Grant; other
3,862,800
grants
965,700
100,000
100,000
20,634,831
8,634,189
1,679,174
3,810,968
120,000
700,000
422,000
0 IDEA
5,268,500
1. Estimated cost for 4 full-­‐time TSAs. Costs could be reduced through contract services or PT teachers reimbursed through stipends or extended pay.
66 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Total
Master Plan for Instructional Technology: Projected Budget 2014-2015
Existing Funding
Category
GF
TII
Parcel Tax
CTAP
PEEF/Library
Improvement
Grant
Unfunded Balance
Other
Unfunded
Balance
Potential Source
Support for Curriculum Integration
Supervisor, Instructional Technology
120,000
1
320,000
320,000 Title I, II; Grants
Stipends: Technology Lead Teachers
Stipends: 40 Technology Integration
Teachers
100,000
100,000 Title I, II; Grants
Technology Integration Specialists
120,000
0
40,000
40,000
Title I, II; Grants
IT Infrastructure, Software, Technical Support & Operations
Certificated Salaries
153,020
19,346
133,674
0
Classified Salaries
6,513,823
3,873,872
515,066
2,124,885
0
265,005
1,205,096
0
80,000
0
Benefits
3,207,327
1,737,226
Consultants
194,500
114,500
ITD Staff Training
30,000
30,000
ITD Travel and Conferences
40,000
Other Services & Other Expenses
1,161,013
893,700
Other Supplies, Printing, Postage
158,000
158,000
Non-capitalized Equipment
989,103
130,000
Mileage & Travel
5,500
5,500
0
0
40,000
0
0
267,313
0
859,103
0
Misc. Construction Costs
14,525
14,525
0
Telephone
1,657,520
1,657,520
0
District Software Licenses
SEIS
55,000
Library Databases
700,000
Data Director
267,000
Instructional Hardware
Teacher Laptop Program (30% of
teachers @ year)
Classroom Suite (15% @ year)
267,000
0 RPA
100,000
SIG Zone Grant; other
grants
SIG Zone Grant; other
3,862,800
grants
0 IDEA
422,000
5,288,500
965,700
3,862,800
100,000
20,654,831
0 IDEA
0
965,700
Assistive Technologies
TOTAL 2014-15
55,000
700,000
8,634,189
1,679,174
3,810,968
120,000
700,000
1. Estimated cost for 4 full-­‐time TSAs. Costs could be reduced through contract services or PT teachers reimbursed through stipends or extended pay.
67 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
6C. COMPUTER REPLACEMENT AND OBSOLESCENCE POLICIES: (6d. Describe the
GLVWULFW¶VUHSODFHPHQWpolicy for obsolete equipment.)
Computer Replacement Policy: School sites have primary responsibility for the purchase and
replacement of instructional hardware, including computing devices. While schools are
encouraged to develop replacement plans and consider total cost of ownership (TCO), few have
formal policies in place.
ITD is researching ways to bring down the costs of hardware replacement. It has negotiated
district bulk purchase contracts with PC and Mac vendors. ITD also serves an R&D function,
testing emerging mobile computing technologies, such as net-books and tablets, and will move
towards private cloud storage, both of which can lower costs of computing devices.
Obsolete and Donated Equipment Policy: ITD has established hardware standards and policies
for obsolete and donated equipment that are posted on the Intranet. Donated and re-cycled
computers are refurbished by the Technology Resource Center. ITD has also set standards for all
major technologies, including desktops, laptops, notebooks, monitors, servers, interactive
whiteboards, and projectors.
6D. MONITOR PROCESS FOR FUNDING AND BUDGET:
(6d. Describe the process that will
be used to monitor Ed Tech funding, implementation costs and new funding opportunities and to
adjust budgets as necessary.)
Process to Monitor: Each year the Information Technology Department (ITD) will prepare an
annual budget based on (a) the detailed annual resource project plans for each strand of the
Technology Plan and (b) actual revenue for the year.
The leadership team for ITD and the Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG) will be
responsible for overall monitoring of the Technology Master Plan, staffed by the Supervisor of
Educational Technology.
The Supervisor of Educational Technology and the CTO will prepare quarterly budget reports for
ITAG who will oversee needed mid-course corrections. As part of the annual Technology Plan
Progress Report, the CTO will submit an expenditure report along with a projected budget for the
QH[W\HDUWRWKH6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V&DELQHWDQGWRWKH%RDUGRI(GXFDWLRQV (See 3k, page 31, for
more detail.)
Evaluation Instruments & Data To Be Collected
Durable Goods Reports
x Hardware acquisition
x Network infrastructure status
LAN Contract
x Deliverables schedule
FAST Reports
x Expenditures by program
x Expenditures by funding source
Technology Installation and Repair Logs
x Repair and maintenance trends
x Deployment of technology
Frequency of Collection
Quarterly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
69 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Reports to Funding Agencies
x Expenditure reports by components
x Implementation timelines
Annually
COMPONENT 7 - MONITORING AND EVALUATION
7A. PROCESS FOR EVALUATING OF TECHNOLOGY PLAN¶S OVERALL PROGRESS
AND IMPACT ON TEACHING AND LEARNING: (7a. Describe the process for evaluating the
SODQ¶VRYHUDOOSURJUHVVDQGLPSDFWRQWHDFKLQJDQGOHDUQLQJ)
Introduction: Research has found little to no correlation between the deployment of technology
in traditional teacher-lead classrooms and improvement in student achievement. 28 Research
shows that technology is effective when technology:
x
Supports student performance of authentic tasks, which usually involve multiple
disciplines and are challenging in their complexity.
x Use is integrated into activities that are a core part of classroom curriculum, not
relegated to the margins.
x Is treated as a tool to help accomplish a complex task rather than a subject of study for
LWVRZQVDNH´29 i30
Therefore, the evaluation of the impact of technology on student learning must examine not only the
deployment and status of technology as monitored by IT logs, but how that technology is used for
teaching and learning as evidenced by classroom observations, samples of lesson plans and student
work, and student achievement data.
Process for Evaluating the Impact of Technology on Student Progress: ITD and C & I will
oversee the implementation of the Technology Plan and monitor its impact on student a
progress in coordination with the Executive Director of RPA and the LEAD Assistant
Superintendents.
Staffed by the Supervisor of Educational Technology, the Instructional Technology Advisory Group
(ITAG) will meet at least quarterly to review progress towards the plans goals and to recommend
mid-course corrections. With assistance from the CTO, the Supervisor of Educational Technology
will be responsible for collating the data from the various sources, documenting the progress of the
Technology Plan, and serving as the liaison between the ITD and C & I. The CTO will serve as the
liaison betweeQ,7$*DQGWKH6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V/HDGHUVKLS&RXQFLO
Annually, the CTO and the Supervisor of Educational Technology will present to ITAG a detailed
project plans based on available resources to meet the benchmarks in each Component. Based on
recommendatioQVIURP,7$*WKHDQQXDOSURMHFWSODQVZLOOEHIRUZDUGHGWRWKH6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V
Leadership Council who will submit the final plan to the Board.
28
Cuban, Larry, Kirkpatrick, Heather, and Craig Peck. "High Access and Low Use of Technologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an
Apparent Paradox." American Education Research Journal. (Winter 2001.
29
&UDGOHU-0F1DEE0)UHHPDQ0DQG%XUFKHWW5³How Does Technology Influence Student Learning´/HDUQLQJDnd Leading with
Technology. (May 2002).
30
³An Overview of Technology and Education Reform´DUHVHDUFKSURMHFWFRQGXFWHGE\65,,QWHUQDWLRQDODQGVSRQVRUHGE\WKH2IILFHRI
Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education.
70 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
The Supervisor of Educational Technology and the CTO will prepare quarterly reports on progress
WRZDUGVWKHREMHFWLYHVDQGEHQFKPDUNVIRU,7$*EDVHGRQGDWDRXWOLQHGEHORZXQGHU³(YDOXDWLRQ
6FKHGXOH´EHORZ2QEHKDOIRI,7$*WKHCTO ZLOOVXEPLWDQQXDOUHSRUWVWRWKH6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V
Leadership Council anGWRWKH%RDUGRI(GXFDWLRQZLWKUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUQH[W\HDU¶VDQQXDO
implementation plan.
7B. SCHEDULE FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: (7b.
Data
Director
School
Loop
Mgmt.
31
System
Stats
Annual
Fall,
spring
Annual
Fall,
spring
Qtrly.
Qtrly.
X
X
X
X
X
4. Professional Development Component
4B1
Staff Technology Proficiency
4b2
Integration of Technology
4B3
Student Information Literacy,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ethical Use of Technology and
Internet Safety
Student Record Keeping and
Assessment
Use of Data Director and
Synergy
2 Way Communication
Use of School Loop
4B4
4B41
4B5
Agendas,
attendance
records
Annual
Student
Work
Tech
Surveys
3. Curriculum Component
3D1.
Integrating Technology into the
Core Curriculum
3E1.
Technological and Information
Literacy Skills
3F1
Ethical Use
3G1.
Internet Safety
3H1.
Appropriate Access
3I.
Student Record Keeping and
Assessment
3I1.
Use of Data Director
3i.2.
Roll-out of Synergy
3J
2-Way Communication
3J1.
Use of School Loop
BSC
Goal
Classroom
observations
Schedule for evaluating the effect of plan implementation.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5. Infrastructure, Hardware, Electronic Resources and Technical Support Component
5D1
Core Classroom Technology
X
X
Benchmarks
Internet Access Benchmarks
Network Benchmarks
Electronic Resources
Benchmarks
Technical Support Benchmarks
5D1
5D1
5C2
5C3
31
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
³0DQDJHPHQWsystem statistics´ includes automated network management systems, service request system, technology installation logs.
71 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
7C. COMMUNICATING RESULTS TO STAKEHOLDERS: (7c. Describe the process and
frequency of communicating evaluation results to tech plan stakeholders.)
.
In addition to the ongoing monitoring by ITAG and the reporting to district leadership described in 7A.
above, updates on the Technology Plan progress and impact will be communicated in the following
ways:
x
Technology Teacher Leaders The Technology Lead Teachers meet quarterly to
participate in professional development, receive updates on the technology plan, and
SURYLGHLQSXWUHJDUGLQJWKHSODQ¶VLPSDFWDWWKHLUUHVSHFWLYHVFKRROV
x
Site Principals: Site principals participate in regular school level meetings under the
direction of the LEAD Assistant Superintendents. Progress reports on the Technology
Plan will be made at the LEAD meetings at least twice a year.
x
All Administrators Institute: The CTO will make a report on the status of the
technology pODQ¶VLPSOHPHQWDWLRQDQGDQRYHUYLHZRISURMHFWSODQVIRUWKHFRPLQJ\HDUDW
the August back-to-school institute for all administrators in the district and schools.
x
Community: The Technology Master Plan and semi-annual progress reports will be
posted on WKHGLVWULFWZHEVLWHDQGOLQNVWRWKHSODQZLOOEHRQHDFKVFKRRO¶VSchool Loop
website. Regular updates will be directed to the Executive Director of Public Outreach
and Communications for inclusion in the district newsletter that reaches the broader
educational community.
x
x
6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V/HDGHUVKLS&RXQFLOThe CTO will present the annual
implementation plan for technology as part of the budgeting process in the spring of each
\HDUDQGDQDQQXDOUHSRUWSULRUWRWKH$GPLQLVWUDWRUV¶)DOO,QVWLWXWH
Board of Education: The CTO will present the annual implementation plan for
technology as part of the budgeting process in the spring of each year and an annual
UHSRUWSULRUWRWKH$GPLQLVWUDWRUV¶)DOO,QVWLWXWH
COMPONENT 8 ±EFFECTIVE COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIES WITH
ADULT LITERACY PROVIDERS TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF
TECHNOLOGY CRITERION
(8. If the district has identified adult literacy providers, describe how the program will be
developed in collaboration with them. If no adult literacy providers are indicated, describe the
process used to identify adult literacy providers or potential future outreach efforts.)
The SFUSD offers a range of parent education programs that include English language development
and literacy through the Departments of Migrant Education, SF School Alliance, and Office of Family
and Community Involvement. The district also coordinates with schools through their Parent
Liaisons, whom the district trains and supports, to conduct site workshops on a wide range of
subjects, including literacy.
72 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
City College of San Francisco (CCSF) is the largest provider of free and low cost programs for adult
literacy as well as technology training. CCSF has eleven campuses located throughout the city and
two specialized technology training centers: the Center for Applied Competitive Technologies and the
School of Applied Science and Technology. CCSF offers classes at two SFUSD sites: A.P. Giannini
and James Lick Middle Schools. Each campus offers a range of literacy, English as a Second
Language (ESL) and GED classes. In addition the district and SFCOE have formal partnerships with
CCSF as part of their Regional Occupation Programs and their Career Technology Education
academies and pathways.
The district and SFCOE will continue the ongoing partnerships with City College of San
Francisco, including housing campuses at school sites to make the programs more accessible
to San Francisco families, the Regional Occupational Program and the Bridge to Success
program, which gives SFUSD students and parents to early access to college.
The district also worked with the SF Public Libraries to provide Internet access and training in
WKHXVHRIWKHGLVWULFW¶VZHEVLWHDQGSchool Loop.
Focusing on a city-wide comprehensive learning system for children and youth, SFUSD has
joined the New Day for Learning Partnership with the San Francisco School Alliance, the San
Francisco Department of Children, Youth and their Families, San Francisco Community of
Opportunity and San Francisco Office of the Mayor. The long-term vision is to develop citywide
policies and more effective partnerships to promote cohesive, protected pathways for learning
from morning to night throughout the year. These plans address the younger adults who are no
longer in formal educational settings but who need opportunities to develop literacy and other
basic skills.
COMPONENT 9 - EFFECTIVE RESEARCH BASED METHODS,
STRATEGIES AND CRITERIA
9A. Relevant Research to Support Curricular and Professional
Development Goals: (9a. Summarize the relevant research and describe how it supports
WKHSODQ¶VFXUULFXODUDQGSURIHVVLRQDOGHYHORSPHQWJRDOV).
7KH7HFKQRORJ\0DVWHU3ODQGHWDLOVKRZWHFKQRORJ\ZLOOEHXVHGWRLPSOHPHQWWKHGLVWULFW¶V
Strategic Plan. 32 The Strategic Plan embraces a set of research-based core principles as the
foundation for school transformation. These same core principles inform the Technology Master
Plan:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rich & Affirming Learning Environments
Empowering Pedagogy
Challenging & Relevant Curriculum
High Quality Instructional Resources
Valid & Comprehensive Assessment
High Quality Professional Preparation & Support
Powerful Family/Community Engagement
Advocacy-Oriented Administrative/Leadership Systems
32
³Beyond the Talk: Taking Action to Educate Every Student Now´6DQ)UDQFLVFR8QLILHG6FKRRO'LVWULFW
http://portal.sfusd.edu/template/default.cfm?page=home.strategic_plan
73 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
The Strategic Plan envisions a culturally and linguistically responsive, multilingual Pre-K-12
core curricular program in which powerful technology is used to engage all students and to
foster 21st century learning. The Strategic Plan defines the key concepts for reform:
x
21st Century Skills, Capabilities and Dispositions: Research identifies the skills
needed for students to succeed in the 21st century:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Academic competencies
Multilingual and cross-cultural competencies
Technological literacy
Communications skills
Aesthetic VHQVLELOLW\¶
Critical and creative thinking, reasons and solution seeking
Social environmental and civic responsibility
Strength of character
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org
http:www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/policy/cels/el4.html
http://www.netTrekker.com
http://www.metiri.com
x
Core Curriculum and Common Learning Assessments: All students must have
access to rigorous and consistent curriculum that meets the new California and national
core standards and promotes 21st century learning for all students. The 21st century core
curriculum will be delivered with teachers, school leaders, and students using
differentiated learning strategies that are informed by Common Learning Assessments
(CLA). Teachers and instructional staff at all schools will continuously refine their
approach to using core curriculum, instructional strategies, resources, and assessment
tools through active participation in Equity Centered Professional Learning Communities
(ECPLCs).
Common Core State Standards Initiative: Standards-Setting Criteria
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Criteria.pdf
%U\NHWDO³2UJDQL]LQJ6FKRROVIRU,PSURYHPHQW/HVVRQVIURP&KLFDJR
University of Chicago Press, 2010.
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/0812BENCHMARKING.pdf
Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class
Education - A report by the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief
State School Officers, and Achieve, Inc.
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/0812BENCHMARKING.pdf
'RQRYDQ6DQG3HOOHJULQR-(GLWRUV³/HDUQLQJDQG,QVWUXFWLRQ
$6(535HVHDUFK$JHQGD´1DWLRQDO$FDGHPLHV3UHVV
³3ULQFLSOHVIRUD&RPSUHKHQVLYH$VVHVVPHQW6\VWHP´$OOLDQFHIRU(GXFDWLRQ
Excellence, Policy Brief, February 2010.
http://www.all4ed.org/files/ComprehensiveAssessmentSystem.pdf
74 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
x
Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pedagogy: A pedagogy that
acknowledges, responds to, and celebrates fundamental cultures and languages offers
full, equitable access to education for students from all cultures and language groups.
http://www.nameorg/resources/defining_multicultural_education.htm
http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/
http://www.nabe.org/
http://rethingingschools.org/special_reports/bilingual/resources.shtml
http://www.bilingualeducation.org/
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/
x
College and Career Readiness: All graduating students will be ready for college and
career by expanding intervention and enrichment programs, developing early college
and career awareness, completion of coursework to help fulfill California public university
requirements. The adoption of the Common Core Curriculum Standards is one strategy
to improve College and Career Readiness. Career Technical Academies and pathway
programs motivate students to think about their personal careers, offer a technology
integrated college preparation curriculum with a career theme and have meaningful
partnerships with the professions. The Bridge to Success with Community College of
San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and UC San Francisco expose students
and families to and increase early access to college.
6WHUQ''D\WRQ'DQG5DE\'³&DUHHU$FDGHPLHV$3URYHQ6WUDWHJ\WR3UHSDUH
High School Students foU&ROOHJHDQG&DUHHUV´&DUHHU$FDGHP\6XSSRUW1HWZRUN
University of California Berkeley, 2010
http://casn.berkeley.edu/resource_files/Proven_Strategy_2-25-1010-03-12-04-2701.pdf
.HPSOH-DQG)HOORZ6³7KH&DUHHU$FDGHP\,PSDFW(YDOXDWLRQImplications for
&DUHHU7HFKQLFDO(GXFDWLRQDQG+LJK6FKRRO5HIRUP´0'5&, 2001.
http://www.mdrc.org/publichations/366/overview.html
Orr,M; Bailey, T; HWDO³7KH1DWLRQDO$FDGHP\)RXQGDWLRQ¶V&DUHHU
$FDGHPLH¶V6KDSLQJ3RVWVHFRQGDU\7UDQVLWLRQV´&ROXPELD8QLYHUVLW\,QVWLWXWHRQ
Education and the Economy, Teachers College, 2004.
http://www.naf.org/cps/rde/xchg
The Technology Master Plan defines how technology will be used to support these
principles and key concepts.
Technology Integration into the Curriculum: Research shows that effective integration of
technology into an integrated, interdisciplinary curriculum to develop 21st century learning skills
DQGLPSURYHVVWXGHQWV¶SHUIRUPDQFH7HFKQRORJ\LVHIIHFWLYHZKHQ
x Technology is incorporated as a routine part of the learning environment.
x Technology use includes 21st century skills that will be required for students to thrive in
the future.
x Standards-aligned electronic learning resources are utilized that enhance the adopted
curriculum appropriate to support student achievement.
x Electronic technologies are used to access and exchange information.
75 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
x
x
x
x
Technology tools assist students with productivity, research, problem solving, higherorder thinking, and decision-making activities related to learning.
Students are allowed to choose and use appropriate technology tools to obtain
information, analyze, synthesize, and assimilate the information, and then to present it in
an acceptable manner.
Technology is used to engage students in activities that are difficult, if not impossible, to
replicate without technology, such as simulations.
Supports student performance of authentic tasks, which usually involve multiple
disciplines and are challenging in their complexity.
³An Overview of Technology and Education Reform´DUHVHDUFKSURMHFWFRQGXFWHGE\
SRI International and sponsored by the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, US Department of Education.
³7HFKQRORJ\LQ6FKRROV6XJJHVWLRQV7RROVDQG*XLGHOLQHVIRU$VVHVVLQJ7HFKQRORJ\LQ
(OHPHQWDU\DQG6HFRQGDU\(GXFDWLRQ´National Center for Education Statistics (NCES),
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 2002.
³(QJDJHst Century Skills for 21st Century Learners.´1RUWK&HQWUDO5HJLRQDO
Educational Laboratory (NCREL) & Metri Group, http://www.nrcel.org//engage.
Kimble, C. Policy Brief- The Impact of Technology on Learning: Making Sense of the
Research. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, Aurora, CO. 1999.
:HQJOLQVN\+³Does It Compute? The Relationship Between Educational
7HFKQRORJ\DQG6WXGHQW$FKLHYHPHQWLQ0DWKHPDWLFV´ Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service, Policy and Information Center. ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED425101. 1998.
Horizon Report: 2008 Edition, New Media Consortium and EduCause Learning
Initiative. 2009
Professional Development to Integrate Technology into a 21st Century Core Curriculum:
Professional development must be embedded in a long term change process and incorporate
ongoing, rigorous in-service in content and pedagogy, time for reflection and peer collaboration,
coaching and mentoring and ready access to learning resources and expertise. If technology is
to be an effective tool for learning, then technology training must be integral to that entire
professional development process rather than treated as a stand-alone subject.
Unlike action plans generated from the top down, teachers are invested in the solutions they
generated from their own collaborative inquiry around student data.
Love. N. Taking Data to New Depths. Journal of Staff Development. Oxford, OH:
National Staff Development Council, 2004, Fall.)
Office of Technology Assessment 1995 (http://www.wws.princeton.org)
6FKPLGW:0F.QLJKW&DQG5DL]HQ6³$6SOLQWHUHG9LVLRQ$Q,QYHVWLJDWLRQRI86
6FLHQFHDQG0DWKHPDWLFV(GXFDWLRQ´861DWLRQDO5HVHDUFK&HQWHUIRUWKHUG,QWHUQDWLRQDO
Mathematics and Science Study, Michigan State University, 1997.
6SDUNV'³$3DUDGLJP6KLIWLQ6WDII'HYHORSPHQW´-RXUQDORI6WDII'HYHORSPHQW)DOO
Vol 15 (4).
76 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
National Staff Development Council Standards for effective Staff Development, 1997.
%UDQG*³:KDW5HVHDUFK6D\V7UDLQLQJ7HDFKHUVIRU8VLQJ7HFKQRORJ\´Journal of Staff
Development, 1997. http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/brand191.cfm
Infrastructure to Build the Foundation for 21st Century Learning: The Technology Master Plan
calls for the upgrade of district infrastructure to provide wired and wireless broadband connections to
every classroom in SFUSD as the first step in laying the foundation for a 21st century classroom
³ZLWKRXWZDOOV´7KH3ODQGHILQHVWKHVWUDWHJLHVWRHQVXUHHTXLWDEOHDFFHVVWRWKHWRRls that best
engage students in the learning goals, improve operability and functionality, and reduce total costs of
ownership. The Plan also calls for the establishment or re-alignment of technology usage policies
and standards to integrate technology into the institutional fabric of a district.
From National Center for Technology in Education (NCTE), 2005.
http://www.ncte.ie/ICTAdviceSupport/AdviceSheets/WirelessNetworks/
:HLO0³Follow the Money´6FKRODVWLF$GPLQLVWUDWRU)HEUXDU\SS-40/
Jones, B.F, Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen. C. ³3OXJJLQJLQ&KRRVLQJDQG8VLQJ
(GXFDWLRQDO7HFKQRORJ\´ Washington DC: Council for Educational Development and
Research and North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
1995http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/edtalk/toc.htm
McNabb, M., Hawkes, M., & Rouk, Ü. Critical Issues in Evaluating
the Effectiveness of Technology. Paper written for the U.S. Department of
(GXFDWLRQ6HFUHWDU\¶V&RQIHUHQFHRQ(GXFDWLRQDO7HFKQRORJ\:DVKLQJWRQ'&
August).
77 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
9B. TECHNOLOGY TO EXTEND THE CURRICULUM, INCLUDING DISTANCE LEARNING
TECHNOLOGIES: (9b. 'HVFULEHWKHGLVWULFW¶Vplans to use technology to extend or supplement the
GLVWULFW¶VFXUULFXOXPZLWKULJRURXVDFDGHPLFFRXUVHVDQGFXUULFXODLQFOXGLQJGLVWDQFH-learning
technologies.)
One of the top priorities of the Superintendent and the SFUSD leadership is the implementation of a
FRPSUHKHQVLYHV\VWHPRI³DQ\WLPHDQ\ZKHUH´YLUWXDOOHDUQLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUVWXGHQWV&XUUHQWO\
SFUSD offers a number of distance learning opportunities to help students prepare for the CAHSEE
and to make up credits for graduation.
A partnership with San Francisco City College allows SFUSD students to enroll in the distance
learning courses offered by the college. The Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) is webbased advanced courses for grades K-12, developed by Stanford University and by the University of
Connecticut. While EPGY was originally designed for GATE students, the program is being used to
enrich and accelerate student learning for students of varying academic levels. The goal is to move
away from distance learning for interventions and remediation and focus on giving students the
opportunity to accelerate their learning and to engage in AP courses and other challenging curricula
through web-based coursework and through video-conferencing and video-streaming, which will
become a reality once the network upgrade is completed.
Digital High School and Kahn Academy are used by students for enrichment and credit recovery and
CAHSEE preparation.
The plan also calls for the use of distance learning to increase professional development
opportunities for teachers and administrators and to support equity-centered professional learning
communities. Currently, SFUSD uses technology, such as Sharepoint, to support teacher
collaborations and to supplement face-to-face professional development. A series of on-line training
programs in the use of Microsoft products and Sharepoint are available through the Sharepoint
intranet site.
The goal, however, is to provide virtual learning opportunities for teachers and administrators not only
to cut costs and to give staff flexibility but also to enrich SFUSD professional development, to give
teachers access to outside expertise and to allow them to differentiate or customize their own
professional development plans to address specific needs. The district will research a variety of tools,
such as web-based courses, video-streaming, video-conferencing and the use of SharePoint and
other on-line collaboration tools, to support teachers and teacher collaborations.
78 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Appendix A
Stakeholders Involvement in the Planning Process:
Technology Planning Team oversaw the planning process, conducted interviews and
prepared drafts of the Technology Plan.
x
x
x
x
33
Daisy Htun Project Manager, ITD
Matt Kinzie, Chief Information Officer, ITD
34
John Rubio, Supervisor, Educational Technology, C & I
Kathleen Schuler, Consultant
Technology Planning Committees: The Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG) and
Lead Technology Teachers represented their respective schools and programs and met to
review research findings, make recommendation to the Planning Team and review drafts. ITAG
will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Technology Plan for 2012-2015.
Our appreciation goes to:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-HDQQH'¶$UF\
Laureen
Bergeron
Erica Chan
Deborah Farkas
Christine Leung
Matt Kinzie,
Jeanne Pon
Supervisor, Math & Science, C & I
x
x
x
x
x
Michelle Powers
John Rubio
Rowena Tong
Christy Carrillo
Eric Chow
Project Management, ITD
Manager, School Loop and Web Services, ITD
Content Specialist, Humanities, C & I
Project Manager, ITD
CTO, ITD
Assistant Superintendent, LEAD - Middle Schools Division
Library Media Specialist, Curriculum Resources Libraries, and Media
Services, C & I
Supervisor, Educational Technology, C & I
TSA, Educational Technology, C & I
Teacher, Robert Lewis Stevenson Elementary
Teacher, Burton High School
x
x
Wayne Chubin
Jim Fong
CTIS , Longfellow Elementary
Parent/Volunteer, Claire Lillienthal Elementary
x
Brian Garcia
Business Analyst, State & Federal programs
x
Suzie Kameny
CTIS, Chavez Elementary School
x
Wanda Kurtcu
CTIS, Carver Elementary
x
Terry Lai
Teacher Librarian, A.P. Giannini Middle School
x
Sean Neil
Teacher, Woodside Learning Center
x
Michael Pollard
Technology Liaison, Civic Center Secondary School
x
Libbie Schock
Teacher, Sloat Elementary
35
33
Information Technology Department
Curriculum and Instruction
35
Curriculum Technology Integation Specialist
34
79 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Interviews with District Leadership: The Planning Team conducted one hour interview or
more with the following leadership.
Board of Education
x Norman Yee
x Emily Murase
6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V2IILFH
x Orla Okeeffe
x Christina Wong,
Curriculum and Instruction
President
Commissioner
Educational Policy Analyst, Office of the Superintendent
Special Assistant, English Learner Services
x
Supervisor, Math/Science
-HDQQH'¶DUF\
Associate Superintendent
x Davida Desmond
Supervisor, Educational Technology
x John Rubio
Supervisor, Curriculum Resources and Libraries
x Daisy Santos
Leadership, Equity, Achievement, Design
Assistant Superintendent, Early Education
x Carla Bryant
$VVLVWDQW6XSHULQWHQGHQW6XSHULQWHQGHQW¶V=RQHV
x Guadalupe Guerrero
Information Technology
Project Manager, SDRP and CalPADS
x JoAnn Castillo
Program Manager (School Loop)
x Erica Chan
Director of Infrastructure
x Erik Heinrich
Project Manager (E-rate, Infrastructure)
x Daisy Htun
CTO
x Matt Kinzie
Director of ITD Operations
x Song Lai
Education Policy Analyst
x Christine Leung
Financial Information Systems Manager
x Eddie Ngo
Desktop Support Manager
x Dave Pankenier
Instruction, Innovation & Social Justice
Deputy Superintendent
x Richard Carranza
Policy and Operations
Deputy Superintendent
x Myong Leigh
Research, Planning and Accountability
Assistant Superintendent
x Ritu Khanna
Special Education Services
Assistant Superintendent (Former)
x Cecelia Dodge
Education Specialist in Assistive Technology
x Tammy Thompson-Cooke
Literacy/ESY Coordinator
x Michelle Marie Maghes
Student Support Services
Executive Director, Restorative Justice
x Claudia Anderson
Director, SF Promise
x Maureen Carew
Associate Superintendent
x Kevin, Truitt
United Educators of San Francisco
Field Representative
x Eric Hall
President
x Dennis Kelly
,
80 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology
San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education
Stakeholder Meetings: The Planning Team participated in the Fall All Administrators meeting
and a meeting of principals. In addition, they made presentations at the following meetings of
leadership.
Instructional Cabinet
36
x
Claudia Anderson
Executive Director, Pupil Services
x
Alan V. Broussard
Executive Director, LEAD
x
Carla Bryant
Chief, Early Education Program
x
Richard Carranza
Deputy Superintendent, Instruction, Innovation and Social Justice
x
Veronica Chavez
Assistant Superintendent, LEAD ± Elementary School Division III
x
Margaret Chiu
Assistant Superintendent, LEAD ± Elementary School Division
x
Davida Desmond
CAO/Associate Superintendent, Curriculum and Instruction
x
Cecelia Dodge
Assistant Superintendent, Special Education Department
x
Patricia Gray
Assistant Superintendent, Superintendent's Zone K-12 Bayview Team
x
Guadalupe Guerrero
Assistant Superintendent, Superintendent's Zone K-12
x
NurJehan Khalique
Assistant Superintendent, LEAD ± Elementary Schools Division II
x
Ritu Khanna
Assistant Superintendent, Research, Planning and Accountability
x
Myong Leigh
Deputy Superintendent, Policy and Operations
x
Hoover Liddell
Special Assistant to the Superintendent
x
Aileen Murphy
Executive Director, Instructional services, Superintendent's Zone K-12
x
2UOD2¶.HHIIH
Educational Policy Analyst, Office of the Superintendent
x
Jeannie Pon
Assistant Superintendent, LEAD ± Middle School Division
x
Bill Sanderson
Executive Director, Curriculum and Instruction
x
Janet Schulze
Assistant Superintendent, LEAD ± High School Division
x
Douglas Stephens
Executive Director, LEAD ± Elementary School Division
x
Baje Thiara
Executive Director, LEAD ± Middle School Division
x
Kevin Truitt
Associate Superintendent, Student Support Services
x
Matt Wayne
Executive Director, LEAD ± Elementary School Division III
x
Christina Wong
Special Assistant to the Superintendent
x
Helen Ying
Executive Director ± LEAD Elementary Schools II
36
± Early Education Department
LEAD = Leadership, Equity, Achievement and Design
81 | P a g e
Master Plan for Instructional Technology