Lessons from the Field:
State Strategies for Funding and
Supporting the Transition to ComputerBased Assessments
April 2012
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Leveraging Federal Funding and Programs
State Highlight: Florida
Emerging State Practices to Build Technology Capacity
Leveraging Economies of Scale
Louisiana’s Coordinated Procurements
Illini Cloud
North Carolina Education Cloud
Flexibilities in Existing State Aid/Spending
New York’s Flexibility in Spending
Indiana’s Textbook Policy Changes
Dedicated State Funding
Illinois Low-Cost Laptop Initiative
Proposed Technology Bond in Rhode Island
Public-Private Partnerships
Louisiana’s Turn on to Learning Initiative
State Highlight: Alabama
State Highlight: Maine
Developing a Task Force and/or State Technology Plan
New York Regents Statewide Learning Technology Plan
Idaho Technology Task Force
Changes in Online/Blended Learning Policies
Oklahoma Rules on Supplemental Online Instruction
New York’s Flexibility in Online and Blended Learning
Conclusion
References
Acknowledgements
Appendix: Additional Resources
3
5
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
13
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
17
19
20
2
Executive Summary
The purpose of this paper is to present a variety of strategies states are taking to build technology
capacity, including how states can leverage currently existing federal funding streams as well as specific
state developed strategies. Some of the ideas are directly related to funding, while others seek to enable
an environment in which schools are building technology capacity for both assessment and instruction.
The strategies included are not intended to be exhaustive, and many are emerging ideas that have yet
to be fully tested; still, they provide a set of possible options for state leaders to consider as they map
out strategies for closing technology and infrastructure gaps in their schools and districts. State leaders
will have to carefully consider which strategies may be most effective in their respective states, given
each unique situation and context.
Some of the emerging state strategies identified include:
 Leveraging Economies of Scale
o Several states are organizing regional or statewide procurements of technology to build
technology capacity and leverage economies of scale, including Louisiana’s coordinated
procurements, Illinois’ district-led Illini Cloud, and North Carolina’s Education Cloud.
 Flexibilities in Existing State Aid/Spending
o A number of states, such as Indiana and New York, have changed policies in state aid and
spending in order to give districts more flexibility to put existing funding towards their
highest needs, including investments in instructional technology.
 Dedicated State Funding
o Some states are working to create funding streams to help schools and districts build
technology capacity and improve school infrastructure. Examples in this paper include
Illinois’ Low-Cost Laptop Program and Rhode Island’s proposed technology bond.
 Public-Private Partnerships
o Partnerships between state agencies, governors’ offices, and private companies have
allowed some states to provide technology devices and professional development that
supports the effective use of technology in the classroom. One example is Louisiana’s Turn
on to Learning Initiative.
 Developing a Task Force and/or State Technology Plan
o Building a state technology plan and/or convening a state task force to address issues of
access to technology has been, for some states, a crucial step to provide vision and
leadership and engage critical stakeholders, including Idaho and New York.
 Changes in Online/Blended Learning Policies
o Several states, including New York and Oklahoma, have recently adopted policy changes
that use incentives or create opportunities for schools to provide more online or blended
learning. While these initiatives do not directly help schools and districts build technology
capacity, the policies can help create an environment in which schools and districts can
promote greater access to technology.
Additionally, some consistent themes emerge from states that have the longest history with online
assessment and/or promoting widespread access to digital learning. These key lessons include:
 Clear, Consistent, and Intentional Planning
o States must develop clear strategic plans to help districts build technology capacity and
create a long-term vision for the state’s digital landscape.
3




State Leadership and Support
o Many of the states that have successfully helped schools and districts build robust
technology infrastructure have had strong and sustained leadership for the effort whether
from the governor, a state legislator, the state’s chief state school officer, or state education
agency leaders.
Intra-State Education Agency Coordination
o Coordinated planning across departments within a state education agency can be a
proactive strategy for building consistent support and coherence among state initiatives,
including those involving assessment, curriculum and instruction, teacher effectiveness and
professional development, communication and outreach, federal programs, and educational
technology.
Clear and Ongoing Communication
o It is essential that states map out a multi-year, sustained communication strategy that
targets different stakeholder groups, including legislators and state government leaders,
educators, local district administrators and technology leaders, parents, students, business
leaders, and community leaders.
One Size Does Not Fit All
o Implementing one or two strategies to help districts close technology gaps is unlikely to be
enough in some states and districts. Instead, state and local leaders should consider a set of
strategies that are targeted to the needs of different types of districts and that best fit the
state’s policy and regulatory context.
4
Introduction
PARCC is a consortium of 24 states working together to develop a common set of K-12 assessments
aligned to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics,
anchored in what it takes to be ready for college and careers. The CCSS call on students to have not only
solid content knowledge but also the skills to apply their knowledge in ways demanded by colleges,
careers, and citizenship in the 21st century. Measuring the full breadth of the CCSS will require new
kinds of tests that measure what matters for students’ futures. Moving to such an assessment system
requires re-imagining assessments as we know them.
The next-generation assessment system envisioned by PARCC will have several benefits not found in
many current assessment systems, including benefits to: students, who will know if they are on track to
graduate ready for college and careers; teachers, who will receive regular results to guide learning and
instruction; parents, who will have clear and timely information about the progress of their children;
states that will have valid results that are comparable across the member states; and the nation, since
the assessments will be on the college- and career-ready, internationally-benchmarked CCSS. PARCC
states will use this new assessment system in the 2014-15 school year and are working with schools and
districts to develop and pilot components of the tests in 2012-13 and 2013-14.
Traditionally, assessments have been pencil-and-paper, fill-in-the-bubble tests administered once a year.
But given tremendous technological advancements, faster and more affordable technology makes it
easier than ever to offer computer-based assessments that will produce timely information about
students’ knowledge, giving parents and students better information and teachers the ability to adjust
instruction and student supports accordingly. It also means that PARCC can leverage technology to
create assessment tasks that promote student access and engagement, to allow for authentic and direct
measures of what students know and can do, and to reduce the cost of assessment over time.
In preparation for the 2014-15 school year, states in PARCC are working with schools and districts to
ensure that they have sufficient technology infrastructure to administer computer-based assessments.
In some states, the transition to computer-based testing has already begun – at least nine PARCC states
already administer at least some of the state’s standardized assessments online. In other states, local
schools may have less familiarity with online testing. Starting in the spring of 2012, PARCC states will
work with a Technology Readiness Tool that captures data about the number and types of devices,
bandwidth and network capacity, and personnel capacity to provide technical support. PARCC will
collect these data each spring and fall through 2014-15 to help states, districts, and schools assess their
progress and develop readiness strategies for closing gaps.
States and districts that have experienced success in expanding access to technology have not focused
their efforts on building technology capacity merely for assessments. These states and districts have
embraced digital learning as an important means to enhance students’ access to a rich and rigorous
college- and career-ready curriculum and to support educators in meeting all students’ needs. It is
essential that state leaders consider the overlapping but distinct needs for technology for assessment
with technologies that support educators and students in the classroom throughout the school year.
Professional development opportunities for all staff members will also be critical to PARCC’s success as
states transition to online testing.
5
Table 1. Current Mandatory and Voluntary Online Testing Within PARCC States1
Assessments Given Online – Mandatory (bolded)2 or Voluntary (not bolded)
State








Florida*
Georgia*




Indiana*
Louisiana*



Maryland*
Mississippi
Oklahoma*










Rhode
Island*
South
Carolina
Tennessee
Grade 6 FCAT 2.0 Reading
Grade 10 FCAT 2.0 Reading
FCAT 2.0 Reading
FCAT Mathematics Retakes
End-of-Course Exams: Algebra I, Geometry, and Biology I
Postsecondary Education Readiness Test (P.E.R.T.) and Diagnostic: Mathematics, Reading, and Writing
Grade 10 FCAT Reading Retake
End‐of-Course Exams: Mathematics I, Mathematics II, GPS Algebra, GPS Geometry, U.S. History,
Economics/Business/Free Enterprise, Biology, Physical Science, 9th Grade Literature and Composition, American
Literature and Composition
Grades 3, 5, 8 Reading and Mathematics CRCT Re-test
Georgia’s Online Assessment System with formative assessments in Reading, English/Language Arts, Mathematics,
Science, and Social Studies
Acuity Formative Assessments for Mathematics, English/Language Arts, Science and Social Studies (Grades 3-8)
Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress‐Plus (ISTEP+) Multiple‐Choice Assessment: Grades 3‐8 English
Language Arts and Mathematics; Grades 4 and 6 Science; Grades 5 and 7 Social Studies
End-of-Course Assessments (ECA): Algebra I, English 10, Biology I
PASS (Practice Assessment/Strengthen Skills): Contains 1) online practice tests in English Language Arts,
Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science for Grades 3 through High School; 2) online Mathematics tutorials and
practice tests for Grades 1-8 in eight Mathematics topics; and 3) Reading tutorials for Pre-K-Grade 3
EAGLE (Enhanced Assessment of Grade-Level Expectations): Teachers in Grades 1-12 create their own online
assessments using an item bank containing over 12,000 items aligned to Louisiana’s Grade-Level Expectations in
English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies; Pre/Post and Premade unit tests that are based
on Louisiana’s Comprehensive Curriculum are also available to teachers
End-of-Course Exams: Algebra I, Geometry, English II, English III, Biology, and U.S. History
Maryland School Assessment (MSA): Science Grades 5 and 8
Modified MSA: Reading and Mathematics Grades 3–8
High School Assessment (HSA): Algebra/Data Analysis, Biology, Language Arts
Modified HSA: Algebra/Data Analysis, Biology, Language Arts
Mississippi Subject Area Testing Program: Algebra I, Biology I, English II, and U.S. History from 1877
Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT): End-of-Instruction Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, English II, English III,
Biology I, and U.S. History
OCCT: Grade 8 Mathematics and Reading
OCCT: Grade 7 Mathematics, Reading, and Geography
8th Grade TechLiteracy Assessment
 End-of-Course Exams: Algebra I/Mathematics for the Technologies II, English I, Physical Science, United States
History and the Constitution, Biology I/Applied Biology
 ePortfolio Assessment for students K-12
3
 Gateway Exams : Mathematics, Language Arts, and Science
Source: SETDA, June 2011, Technology Requirements for Large-Scale Computer-Based and Online Assessment: Current Status and Issues.
*These states’ information was updated by state leaders after SETDA collected data in June 2011.
1
This list does not include tests that were identified by SETDA or by states as being field tested or piloted.
Mandatory means that students take these assessments online (unless students request a waiver).
3
Gateway Exams are being phased out and replaced with End-of-Course exams.
2
6
Making the Transition
To help states prepare for the transition to next-generation assessments, the PARCC consortium is
providing a set of tools and guidance to PARCC states, including the Technology Readiness Tool, support
to help states build action plans to address technology gaps, guidance on minimum hardware and
bandwidth specifications, and an implementation workbook that includes support for planning
technology and assessment system transitions.
The Technology Readiness Tool, developed in conjunction with the SMARTER Balanced Assessment
Consortium, is an open source tool that helps states and districts assess capacity and identify gaps for
administering the new online assessments. Each PARCC state has a State Readiness Coordinator (SRC),
an individual or group of individuals who disseminate state-specific information to the appropriate
stakeholders and answer questions from district and school personnel. The tool focuses on four areas:
devices, device-to-tester ratio, network infrastructure, and personnel. The first data collection window,
from March through June 2012, will provide an initial inventory and baseline information to states and
districts, and subsequent data collections will occur twice a year through 2014. There is modest support
within the PARCC grant to help support states as they develop strategies and implement plans to close
technology gaps in preparation for the PARCC assessment system. In spring 2012, PARCC will also issue
suggested minimum hardware specifications to help guide districts as they make decisions about
instructional technology purchases. These specifications may be updated over the next year as the
assessment system requirements are finalized. Specifications on software, browser, network or
bandwidth requirements will be determined and released over the next year as the specifics of the test
design, item types, and response modes are finalized.
On behalf of PARCC states, Achieve, in partnership with the U.S. Education Delivery Institute (EDI), has
also created a Common Core Implementation Workbook to help guide states’ transition into the CCSS
and next-generation assessments. The workbook uses a performance management methodology known
as “delivery” to lay out clear action steps for states and districts. One of the chapters of the workbook
gives particular guidance on technology and assessment system transition. The chapter guides states
through key steps in transition planning, including conducting a gap analysis, differentiating technology
needs among districts, selecting strategies and creating a plan to address readiness gaps, and
monitoring progress to ensure 100 percent technology readiness by 2014-2015.4
Given the information states and districts will have as a result of using the Technology Readiness Tool,
states are left to answer the critical question of how to help districts close readiness gaps in today’s
fiscal climate. This paper presents a variety of strategies states are taking to build technology capacity.
First, we will discuss how states can take a coordinated approach to leveraging currently existing federal
funding streams. Next, we will review specific strategies some states are using to increase access to
technology in the classroom. Some of the ideas are directly related to funding, while others seek to
enable an environment in which schools are building technology capacity for both assessment and
instruction. The strategies included are certainly not exhaustive, and many are emerging ideas that
have yet to be fully tested; yet, they provide a set of possible options for state leaders to consider as
they map out strategies for closing technology and infrastructure gaps in their schools and districts.
State leaders will no doubt have to carefully consider which strategies may be most effective in their
respective states, given each unique situation and context.
4
To access the Common Core Implementation Workbook, please visit:
http://www.parcconline.org/CommonCoreImplementationWorkbook.
7
Leveraging Federal Funding and Programs
The following are some examples of federal funding that could potentially be used to help support
building technology capacity, consistent with other programmatic requirements. This is not intended to
be an exhaustive list; there may be other federal resources that states should consider. Please note,
many states may already have dedicated their federal resources for specific purposes, which may or may
not include building technology capacity. States should consider taking a coordinated approach to
leveraging federal funding by conducting a state review of federal resources and allowable uses. Please
see the state highlight on page nine for an example.
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides financial assistance
to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from
low-income families for programs to help ensure that low-achieving children meet challenging state
academic standards. Per Title I, Part A guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education, in order to
support a Title I program, funds could potentially be used for technology equipment and building
rewiring, provided the uses meet certain conditions.
[F]unds may be used to rewire a school to support the use of technology to the extent that the wiring is
necessary to support technology otherwise allowable under Title I, Part A and is consistent with the
definition of minor remodeling [minor alterations in a previously completed building]... In general, an LEA
may use Title I, Part A…funds to purchase technology in a Title I school as long as the LEA is not purchasing
similar technology or software for other schools in the LEA with non-Title I funds or, in the case of a Title I
school operating a targeted assistance program, the LEA is not providing similar services to non-Title I
students with non-Federal funds. Which students and teachers may use the technology depends on
whether the school is operating a schoolwide or targeted assistance program… Additionally, the use of the
technology must be consistent with the needs identified in a school’s schoolwide plan or the design of its
targeted assistance programs (U.S. Department of Education guidance, G-16 and G-17).
Please see the U.S. Department of Education guidance for more information (references available on
page 17).
School Turnaround Grants
School Improvement Grants (SIG) allow state educational agencies (SEAs) to make competitive sub
grants to LEAs that demonstrate the greatest need and strongest commitment to substantially raise the
achievement of students in their lowest-performing schools. As part of implementing interventions at
the school level, including one of four school intervention models in Tier I and Tier II schools, LEAs may
use SIG funds to pay for “minor remodeling” that may be needed to support technology needed as part
of the school intervention model. Please see the U.S. Department of Education guidance for more
information (references available on page 17).
E-Rate Program
The E-Rate program was created as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and offers discounted
telecommunications services, internet access, and internet connections to improve access among poor
and most remote, rural areas. Up to $2.25 billion annually is available to provide eligible schools and
libraries with discounts under the E-rate program for authorized services. The E-Rate program provides
discounts of 20 percent to 90 percent for eligible telecommunications services, depending on location as
well as economic need. Some states have used the E-Rate program by coordinating telecommunications
procurements across the state and receiving E-Rate discounts for many or all school districts. See the
8
case studies on Alabama and Maine for state specific examples on how E-Rate can be leveraged to help
expand internet access.)
State Highlight: Florida
Florida state leaders have taken a coordinated approach to leveraging federal funding to
support the transition to computer-based assessments. The state has specifically
identified which federal resources can be used for which purposes: educator
equipment/hardware, student equipment/hardware, and/or professional development.
Florida prepared the table below for state leaders, which delineates several potential
federal funding sources for supporting computer-based assessments. In addition,
Florida’s guidance to districts for Title I, Part A applications requires that any technology that is purchased,
upgraded, and/or replaced using Title I funds must have the capacity to support computer-based testing.
In determining whether funding streams can be applied to specific uses related to building technology capacity,
state leaders should ensure that proposed allocations and expenditures do not violate federal requirements related
to supplanting. In particular, supplanting is presumed to occur when federal funds are used to implement a statelevel requirement or federal funds are used to provide a benefit to an eligible population while non-federal funds
are used to provide the same benefit to other populations that are not eligible for the federal program. Each
situation must be individually analyzed to determine whether proposed uses of funds are compliant with federal
requirements.
Florida’s Guidance: Potential Federal Grant Resources for Funding Computer-Based Assessment
Educator
Equipment /
Hardware
Student
Equipment /
Hardware
Professional
Development
Program
Comments
These funds may only be used in schools designated as
Title I schools. Use of Title I funds for computer-based
X
X
X
Title I, Part A
assessment is more likely to be compliant with federal
regulations in schoolwide programs rather than targeted
assistance programs.
These funds may be used only for professional
X
Title II, Part A
development in core subject areas.
Title II, Part B, Math and
This is a competitive program from the state to the subX
Science Partnerships
recipients.
For the most part, these funds can be used only to benefit
Individuals with Disabilities
students with disabilities; so for example, use of these
X
X
X
Education Act (IDEA)
funds for professional development would be limited to
educators serving students with disabilities.
The extent to which these funds can be used to support
School Improvement
X
X
X
computer-based assessment will depend on the state’s
Grants (1003a and 1003g)
approved plans for use of the funds.
Race to the Top (RTTT)
Funds can be used consistent with approved state/local
X
X
X
State Grant
scopes of work.
Generally available for any purpose which supports the
Title VI, Part A, Grants for
development and/or administration of state assessments
X
X
X
State Assessments and
and standards at the discretion of the state (may include
Related Activities
the costs of working in partnerships with other states).
Note: Title III is not included in this listing because USED has interpreted the supplement/not supplant provision to specifically preclude use
of Title III funds for assessment purposes.
9
Emerging State Practices to Build Technology Capacity
Leveraging Economies of Scale
Several states are organizing regional or statewide procurements of technology to build capacity and
leverage economies of scale. In this way, these states have been able to save districts (and the state)
money on infrastructure and technology while expanding broadband and technology access. In some
states, this coordination requires some modest funding from the state to facilitate or coordinate the
work, but in other cases, states have been able to use existing staff to coordinate these purchases.
Louisiana’s Coordinated Procurements
The Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) has been working with districts to create contracts for
procuring hardware, software, and services for expanding school, regional or statewide procurements.
The state has been researching various approaches, both in-state and out-of-state, to craft both
contracts and procurement processes in order to improve and expand private sector service offerings,
efficiencies, and cost savings for PK-12 schools. The state considered modeling this approach after a
similar process that Louisiana’s higher education institutions use to improve service, efficiency, and cost
savings for public colleges and universities. Louisiana’s higher education institutions have saved over $6
million annually and receive up to eight times more bandwidth services for their educational institutions
than if they were to procure and contract these services individually. Louisiana’s PK-12 schools hope
that the creation of better procurement mechanisms for acquiring hardware and software, deployment
and management services, network and telecommunication services, and support services through
private providers will achieve similar cost savings and expanded services enjoyed by other education
and government institutions within the state and nation. The PK-12 effort is expected to save districts
and the state a significant amount of money over time with relatively modest support from the state.
Ilini Cloud
A district-led initiative, the Illini Cloud provides some K-12 schools with network services and access to a
statewide infrastructure and a delivery system. The Illini Cloud allows participating schools and districts
to reduce costs by sharing applications, data storage, and instructional technology resources. Through
this effort, over 200 school districts in Illinois have teamed up to share software and technology in a
nonprofit cloud computing consortium for schools. Three Illinois districts located in South, Central, and
North Illinois (Belleville, Bloomington, and DeKalb) serve as data centers which host computer systems,
backup power supplies, and security devices. The cloud is district run and operated, allowing districts to
opt in or out of the cloud at any time. By participating in the cloud, Illinois districts are saving 30 to 60
percent in costs. For example, districts can rent space on the cloud for $600 to $800 per year, compared
to up to $6,000 individually.
North Carolina Education Cloud (RTTT initiative)
The NC Education Cloud (NCEdCloud) is a $34.6 million shared services initiative, funded by the state’s
Race to the Top grant, and is designed to more efficiently and effectively deliver technology services to
school districts in North Carolina. NCEdCloud is intended to provide a highly reliable, highly available
server infrastructure that supports K-12 schools and districts statewide. Specifically, the state will
facilitate migration from LEA-hosted server infrastructure to cloud-hosted infrastructure to provide IT
infrastructure. NCEdCloud recently completed the initial phase of planning for the deployment of the
program and is now working to develop individual plans for each project under the program.
10
Flexibilities in Existing State Aid/Spending
A number of states have changed policies in state aid and spending in order to give districts more
flexibility to put existing funding towards their highest needs, including investments in instructional
technology. Though these changes do not require schools to purchase technology, the flexibility can
allow districts to invest in technology for instruction and assessment.
New York’s Flexibility in Spending
In 2011, New York State Education Law was amended to provide flexibility to districts in the use of
instructional materials aids, which include textbooks, library materials, computer software, and
instructional computer hardware. Under the new provisions, a school district may spend more than its
maximum allocation in any one of the areas by drawing on available aid in the other categories (with the
exception of library materials aid). The change allows schools to use portions of state textbook aid for
instructional software and hardware purchases. These new provisions first apply to 2011-12 expenses
for 2012-13 aids.
Indiana’s Textbook Policy Changes
In November 2009, the Indiana State Board of Education changed the definition of a textbook in order to
include digital content, allowing schools to use textbook funds to purchase instructional technology. In
2011, the Indiana Legislature codified the definition change through House Bill 1429, which also changed
the textbook vetting process to provide schools and districts greater control and choice. At least nine
other states have similarly changed their policies to provide this flexibility.
Dedicated State Funding
Some states are working to create additional funding streams to help schools and districts build
technology capacity and improve school infrastructure.
Illinois Low-Cost Laptop Initiative
The Children’s Low-Cost Laptop Act [105 ILCS 65/5] authorizes a two-year pilot program designed to
provide a low-cost laptop computer to each student, teacher, and relevant administrator in a
participating school and implement the use of educational software and computer skills training at the
elementary grade levels (i.e., grades 3 through 8) in order to improve academic achievement. Eligible
districts include those that: 1) have 40 percent or more of its students eligible to receive free or
reduced-price meals; 2) are in Academic Early Warning or Academic Watch status; and 3) have a
significant percentage of the students in grades 3 through 8 with limited or no access to laptop
computers for use in improving their educational opportunities. Total funding for the program is $10
million in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, available through Build Illinois bond funds. Under the program,
school districts are responsible for equipment purchases rather than receiving the devices from the
state, although funding is provided by state appropriations.
Proposed Technology Bond in Rhode Island
As Rhode Island began planning for next-generation assessments, officials realized districts needed
assistance to improve school infrastructure in two primary areas: securing sufficient bandwidth and
building classroom infrastructure (i.e. sufficient number of electrical outlets, wireless structure in
classrooms, etc.). In order to help districts first address any classroom infrastructure concerns, state
education officials have proposed a Technology Bond which would invest $20 million over the next three
years to improve classroom and building infrastructure. The Technology Bond has been incorporated
11
into the governor’s budget which is awaiting legislative approval. There has been strong state leadership
to prepare and present this Bond to the governor and to legislative leaders in order to make building
technology infrastructure a priority in the state.
Public-Private Partnerships
Partnerships between state agencies, governors’ offices, and private companies have allowed some
states to provide technology devices and professional development that supports effective use of
technology in the classroom. States may also be able to pursue funding through grants from corporate
and educational foundations. For example, some states have recently used funding from the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, Verizon Foundation, and the HP Technology for Teaching Grant Initiative to
build technology capacity.
Louisiana’s Turn On To Learning Initiative
In 2008, the Governor's office sponsored a pilot program, Turn on to Learning (TOTL), in partnership
with Apple Computer that supplied 3,530 laptops to sixth-graders across the state. TOTL also created a
network of support for teachers and students by using district technology personnel and the regional
teaching, learning, and technology centers to provide technical support in the classroom, professional
development, and training for integrating technology. In addition, Louisiana's Colleges of Education
were supplied laptops to provide new teachers with a technology integration model that would result in
linking today's classroom with tomorrow's. The state dedicated $5 million in state funds to launch this
pilot project. Evaluations of the program have found positive results that have persisted for several
years. Eighth grade Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP) scores increased for students
participating in the pilot. Additionally, educators have integrated technology into teaching and have
kept their “electronic” classrooms, even after program ended.
12
State Highlight: Alabama
Strategies Used
-Developing a State Technology Plan
-Leveraging Federal Resources
-Leveraging Economies of Scale
-Dedicated State Funding
In 2004, after recommendations from former Governor Bob Riley’s Task
Force on Distance Learning, Alabama launched its ACCESS Distance Learning
Initiative to expand access to digital learning courses across the state so that
all students had access to rigorous courses, even if they were not offered by
the school they attended. The program is funded through a line item in the
state budget providing approximately $20 million per year. Initially, the
program awarded 360 grants to public high schools to equip the schools with a “21st Century
Classroom.” The grants, ranging from $50,000 to $85,000, included videoconference equipment, at least
25 tablet PCs, and other technology. To help leverage economies of scale, the Alabama Department of
Education has coordinated procurements across the state, taking advantage of the state’s joint
purchasing laws. To begin the process, school system administrators fill out an online request form
outlining the products the school and system needs. Using information about what equipment is needed
across districts, the state then coordinates the procurement process required to obtain various product
line contracts as requested. In the initial stages of the ACCESS Distance Learning Initiative project, a
“reverse quote” process was implemented with vendors already participating and providing the
equipment via the already established state contracts. Once even further discounted equipment was
established through the reverse quote process, schools directly purchased Distance Learning technology
using the discounted rates from the awarded vendors. This process resulted in further maximizing the
program funding.
The Alabama Department of Education also works in a coordinated way to leverage federal resources.
The state Title I coordinator works with the education technology staff to help schools think through
whether and how Title I funds can be used to build technology capacity. When Alabama launched the
ACCESS Distance Learning Initiative, the state worked with the Alabama Supercomputer Authority to
expand the high-speed Alabama Research and Education Network (AREN) data network to the K-12
system. The state leverages E-Rate for all schools in the state by organizing a consortium of all school
districts in a joint application. E-Rate funds on average 75 percent of E-rate eligible costs with ACCESS
funding the remaining 25 percent or non-discounted portion. By 2010, Alabama delivered broadband
connectivity to all its 371 high schools and 133 central district offices.
The Alabama Legislature is also currently considering Senate Bill 199, which would provide to all
students in grades 9 through 12 approved textbooks and instructional materials in electronic format.
The bill would also provide to all students and teachers in grades 9 through 12 a tablet computer or
other wireless device for storing, reading, accessing, exploring, and interacting with digital textbooks
and other instructional materials. The initiative would be funded by issuing up to $100 million in bonds.
13
State Highlight: Maine
Strategies Used
-Developing a State Technology Plan
-Leveraging Federal Resources
-Leveraging Economies of Scale
-Dedicated State Funding
Recognizing the competing demands of a global economy, former Governor
Angus King realized that a 1:1 educational environment would provide
students and educators with access to technology that would have a truly
transformational impact on Maine’s educational system and economy. In
late 1999 and early 2000, Maine experienced a one-time surplus that
allowed the state to take the first steps to creating this 1:1 learning
environment. To study how the state should move forward, the governor
convened a Task Force on the Maine Learning Technology Endowment to provide recommendations on
improving and expanding digital learning across the state. The final report of the Task Force was issued
in January 2001.
In 2001, the Maine Department of Education issued a request for proposals and selected a technology
company to provide a wireless classroom solution for participating schools, officially launching the
initiative for 7th and 8th graders. The wireless classroom solution included devices, wireless infrastructure
in schools, technical support, repairs, professional development, and online learning systems. A second
request for proposals and contract award refreshed the program in 2006. In 2009, the state worked to
expand the program into high schools by negotiating with its technology provider for a reduced rate on
the laptops, which allowed local high school districts to participate in the program at their own expense.
This opportunity enabled Maine, on behalf of all of its middle schools and participating high schools, to
lease 70,000 machines using a combination of state funds (from the General Purpose Aid budget) and
local funds, therefore refreshing equipment in the middle schools and expanding to the high schools.
Currently, 100 percent of middle schools (226) and 55 percent of high schools (66 public) participate in
the 1:1 program. The program also provides devices for teachers and administrators in 7th through 12th
grade. The statewide procurements allow for significantly reduced pricing of approximately $242 per
seat per year, compared to $500 or $600. This includes devices, software, warranty, support, repairs,
professional development, online learning system, project management, asset management,
replacements, and custom software image development.
The state has also leveraged economies of scale to procure internet access across the state. The Maine
School and Library Network (MSLN), operated by Networkmaine, serves almost 1,000 public K-12
schools and public libraries across the state. Networkmaine is a consortia of the Maine Department of
Education, Maine State Library, Maine Office of Information Technology, and the University of Maine
system. MSLN uses a combination of E-Rate funding and the Maine Telecommunications Education
Access Fund (MTEAF) to provide internet access statewide. The MTEAF provides $4 million annually to
support the non-E-Rate portion of the costs of providing internet access as well as non-E-Rate eligible
services. This includes $3.3 million for the non-E-Rate portion of costs (including transport and internet
service), while $700,000 is allocated for content for the state virtual library. Through this network, K-12
schools and public libraries are able to acquire internet access, local loop circuits, and other related
services to run broadband networks. With the E-Rate discounts and state funding available, schools do
not pay anything for internet access.
14
Developing a Task Force and/or State Technology Plan
Building a state technology plan and/or convening a state task force to address issues of access to
technology has been for some states a crucial step to provide vision and leadership and engage critical
stakeholders. While not directly related to funding the technology infrastructure changes, having this
structure in place can be one element to smooth the transition to computer-based testing and help
build infrastructure for digital classrooms.
New York Regents Statewide Learning Technology Plan
In 2010, the New York State Board of Regents created a state learning technology plan. This plan was
developed from statewide public input on recommended actions to achieve the state’s goals and realize
the Regents’ vision of technology to transform learning and teaching. The goals of the plan include
improving digital content, digital use, digital capacity and access, leadership, accountability, and funding.
The plan also specified twelve actions the state would undertake to carry out this plan, including actions
on current policy reviews to ensure that policies are not inhibiting the growth of using technology in the
classroom and the creation of new policies to support the expansion of digital learning. As New York
works toward statewide computer-based assessments, the state is finding ways to connect strategies to
the plan. The plan has elevated the conversation of integrating technology into learning across the state
and has been consistently referred to and integrated into other initiatives, such as Race to the Top.
Idaho Technology Task Force
Passed in 2011, Senate Bill 1184 directed the Superintendent of Public Instruction to create and chair a
task force to help implement the technology components of the Students Come First laws. Specifically,
the task force was gathered to study and develop plans for the implementation of online course
requirements, 1:1 mobile computing devices in high schools, improved classroom technology at all
grade levels, and professional development for teachers. The 2011 summary report provided a number
of recommendations, including recommendations to procure the same 1:1 device statewide. This task
force has helped provide vision, leadership, and direction for enabling the state to move forward with
plans to create a 1:1 environment.
Changes in Online/Blended Learning Policies
Several states have recently adopted policy changes that use incentives or create opportunities for
schools to provide more online classes and blended learning that combines online and face-to-face
components. While these initiatives do not directly help schools and districts build technology capacity,
the policies can help create an environment in which schools and districts can promote greater access to
technology.
Oklahoma Rules on Supplemental Online Instruction
Oklahoma has recently adopted rules on supplemental online instruction that require schools to give
students access to supplemental online courses to provide more course options for students and
parents. The change allows for up to 5 hours of online instruction per public school student. According
to the rule, schools may use Oklahoma State Aid Formula to purchase online course materials.
New York’s Flexibility in Online and Blended Learning
In 2011, the New York State Board of Regents approved new regulations relating to credit for online and
blended coursework. This rule change allows school principals to determine whether an online or hybrid
15
class is equivalent to a traditional class, thereby allowing students to use those courses for high school
credit. If a student takes such a class, they are required to take a Regents examination or summative
assessment in that class in order to receive credit, unlike a traditional class. The policy serves as an initial
foundation for schools and districts to develop, implement, and evaluate online and blended courses as
alternative pathways for student completion of general education and diploma requirements. Although
this regulation does not require schools to offer online and blended learning, it signals that schools can
use these opportunities as an incentive to build technology capacity.
Conclusion
One of the questions states may need to answer is how to sustain the effort of building technology
capacity over time. To help address this question, some consistent themes emerge from states that have
the longest history with online assessment and/or widespread access to digital learning, such as
Alabama, Florida, Idaho, and Maine. These key lessons include:
 Clear, Consistent, and Intentional Planning
o These states developed clear strategic plans to help districts build technology capacity and
create a long-term vision for the state’s digital landscape. State leaders should consider
creating clear plans to implement feedback loops and monitor progress, allowing a state to
identify any challenges or issues in the plan and correct the course of action.
 State Leadership and Support
o Many of the states that have successfully helped schools and districts build robust
technology infrastructure have had strong and sustained leadership whether from the
governor, a state legislator, the state’s chief state school officer, or state education agency
leaders. In these cases, having a champion to help build the vision, lead the effort, and
sustain support over time was critical. This holds true regardless of the state’s role (i.e.
facilitating disseminating best practices, procurements, etc.).
 Intra-State Education Agency Coordination
o States can benefit from proactive, coordinated planning efforts across state education
departments, including assessment, curriculum and instruction, teacher effectiveness and
professional development, communication and outreach, and federal programs. States
should also encourage personnel within the agency to work with professional organizations
to network with and learn from other states by sharing strategies and lessons. These efforts
should address all student populations to include students with disabilities and English
learners.
 Clear and Ongoing Communication
o It is essential that states map out a communication strategy outlining different messages
that may need to be targeted to different stakeholder groups, including legislators and state
government leaders, educators, parents, students, business leaders, and community
leaders. In some cases, communication will need to include targeted messages among
different stakeholder groups to help build the support needed (monetary or otherwise) for
increasing access to technology across the state.
 One Size Does Not Fit All
o Implementing one or two strategies to help districts close technology gaps is unlikely to be
enough. Instead, state leaders should consider a set of strategies that are targeted to the
needs of different types of districts and that best fit the state’s policy and regulatory
context.
16
References
Alabama
Alabama ACCESS Distance Learning Initiative. (2011). Telling Alabama's Digital Story. Retrieved from:
http://www.accessst.asc.edu/
Alabama Supercomputer Authority. (2009). Alabama Research and Education Network. Retrieved from:
http://www.asc.edu/network/index.shtml
Browning, J., Maddox, M., Patton, E. Interview by C. Maliszewski and L. Muldoon. February 9, 2012.
Staker, H. and Trotter, A. (2011). Providing ACCESS to Alabama: Connecting rural classrooms
through distance and online learning. Retrieved from:
http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Providing-ACCESSto-Alabama.pdf
Federal Resources
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Guidance on Fiscal Year 2010 School Improvement Grants.
Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). E-Rate Program. Retrieved from:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/erate.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Using Title I, Part A ARRA Funds for Grants to Local Educational
Agencies to Strengthen Education, Drive Reform, and Improve Results for Students. Retrieved
from: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/titlei-reform.pdf
Florida
Black, J., Verges, V. Interview by C. Maliszewski and L. Muldoon. September 6, 2011.
Florida Department of Education. (2012). Title I, Part A Guidance. Retrieved
from: http://www.fldoe.org/bsa/title1/doc/1112TitleI-GuidanceChecklist.doc
Florida Department of Education. (2012). Postsecondary Education Readiness Test (P.E.R.T.). Retrieved
from: http://www.fldoe.org/cc/pert.asp
Idaho
Macdonald, A. Interview by C. Maliszewski and L. Muldoon. February 14, 2012.
Students Come First: Technology Task Force, Office of the State Department of Education. (2011). 2011
Summary Report. Retrieved from:
http://www.studentscomefirst.org/docs/Technology%20Task%20Force%20Summary%20Report
%20-%20Final.pdf
Illinois
Agarwal, P., Barnhart, K., Williams, B. Interview by C. Maliszewski and L. Muldoon. December 2, 2011.
Dewitt, V.,Fiscus, M., Barnhart, K. (2012). “Vendor Neutral, Standards Based, District Owned: The
IlliniCloud.” Principal Leadership, 64-66.
IlliniCloud. (2012). About IlliniCloud. Retrieved from: http://www.illinicloud.org/about-2/
Illinois State Board of Education. (2010). Request for Proposals (RFP): Children’s Low-cost Laptop
Program. Retrieved from: http://www.isbe.net/curriculum/pdf/low_cost_laptop_rfp11.pdf
Indiana
Fletcher, G.H. (2011). Making the Big Shift. The Journal. Retrieved from:
17
http://thejournal.com/articles/2011/06/17/making-the-big-shift.aspx
Louisiana
Chou, F., Mosley, C., Elder, D. Interview by C. Maliszewski and L. Muldoon. December 1, 2011.
Maine
Maine Department of Education. (2009). Maine Learning Technology Initiative. Retrieved from:
http://maine.gov/mlti/
Maine School and Library Network. (2008). Homepage. Retrieved from: http://www.msln.net/index.php
Mao, J. Interview by C. Maliszewski and L. Muldoon. January 27, 2012.
State of Maine 119th Legislature Regular Session. (2001). Final Report of the Task Force on the Maine
Learning Technology Endowment. Retrieved from:
http://maine.gov/mlti/resources/history/mlterpt.pdf
New York
New York State Education Department. (2011). 2011-12 Amendments to Textbook, Software and
Instructional Computer Hardware Aids Statutes. Retrieved from:
https://stateaid.nysed.gov/tsl/html_docs/amendments_statutes_tsl_2011_12.htm
New York State Education Department. (2012). Approach to Developing Statewide Computer-based
Testing Transition Plan. Retrieved from:
http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2012Meetings/March2012/312p12d2.pdf
New York State Education Department. (2011). Proposed addition of Section 100.5(d)(10) of the
Regulations of the Commissioner of Education Relating to the Credit for Online and Blended
Learning. Retrieved from:
http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2011Meetings/June2011/611p12a5.pdf
New York State Education Department. (2011). USNY Statewide Learning Technology Plan. Retrieved
from: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/technology/techplan/
Paska, L. Interview by C. Maliszewski and L. Muldoon. December 7, 2011.
North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2011). NC Education Cloud Overview. Retrieved from:
http://cloud.fi.ncsu.edu/overview/
Oklahoma
Hileman, E. Interview by C. Maliszewski and L. Muldoon. December 2, 2011.
Oklahoma Department of Education Administrative Code Rules. (2012). Chapter 15. Curriculum and
Instruction, Subchapter 34. Supplemental Online Course Procedures. Retrieved from:
http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/Rules-Ch15Sub34SuppOnlineCourses.pdf
Rhode Island
Ferry, M., Keith, K. Interview by C. Maliszewski and L. Muldoon. January 5, 2012.
18
Acknowledgements
PARCC would like to thank the following individuals whose assistance, input, and ideas made this paper
possible.
Casey Maliszewski and Lesley Muldoon of Achieve led the core research, writing, and development of
this paper.
Thank you to Douglas Levin and Geoffrey Fletcher from SETDA, Wes Bruce from the Indiana Department
of Education, and Susan Van Gundy from Achieve, who provided valuable, strategic vision and guidance
on this paper. Thanks to Christine Fox from SETDA and Jessica McKinney from the U.S. Department of
Education, who provided general guidance and information about federal funding resources.
Thank you to Achieve staff and PARCC working group members who provided review and guidance,
including Laura Slover, Margaret Horn, Tracy Graham, Chad Colby, and members of the PARCC
Technology Operational Working Group, including Joe Blessing (Georgia), Trinell Bowman (Maryland),
Fen Chou (Louisiana), and Mike Ferry (Rhode Island).
Special thanks to a number of state leaders who provided valuable information about strategies in their
states: Jerome Browning, Melinda Maddox, and Earlene Patton from Alabama; Jenny Black and Vince
Verges from Florida; Alex Macdonald from Idaho; Pooja Agarwal, Kathleen Barnhart, and Brandon
Williams from Illinois; Fen Chou, Dave Elder, and Carol Mosley from Louisiana; Jeff Mao from Maine;
Doug Jaffe and Lawrence Paska from New York; Joyce DeFehr and Eric Hileman from Oklahoma; and
Mike Ferry and Kamlyn Keith from Rhode Island.
19
Appendix: Additional Resources
Assess4ed.net
 Assess4ed.net provides information to help address the challenges, and leverage the
opportunities, of next generation assessment systems powered by technology. The site, hosted
by the State Education Technology Directors Association (SETDA), provides resources and social
networking opportunities for those working to build educational technology capacity.
o Website link: http://www.assess4ed.net/
Case Studies on Assessment Transition
 Pearson completed case studies on lessons learned from three states during a transition to next
generation assessments.
o Mississippi case study:
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/nextgen/downloads/NextGen_CS_Mi
ssissippi.pdf
o North Carolina case study:
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/nextgen/downloads/NextGen_CS_N
Carolina.pdf
o Virginia case study:
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/nextgen/downloads/NextGen_CS_Vi
rginia.pdf
Common Core Implementation Workbook
 Achieve and Education Delivery Institute (EDI) partnered to create a Common Core
Implementation Workbook. One chapter of the workbook is on transitioning technology and
assessment systems. States can use this workbook as a resource to guide transition planning
efforts.
o Website link: http://www.achieve.org/files/Chapter-7-Feb29.pdf.
Consortium for School Networking (CoSN)
 The Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) is a professional association for school district
technology leaders. CoSN is committed to providing the leadership, community and advocacy
tools essential for the success of these leaders. Relevant CoSN initiatives include 1) Total Cost of
Ownership project which provides school leaders with tools to help them estimate the Total
Cost of Ownership (TCO) for their networked computing infrastructure; and 2) the Broadband
Knowledge Center, which highlights needs and high bandwidth capability in schools and shares
resources on improving broadband access.
o Website link: http://www.cosn.org
o Total Cost of Ownership:
http://www.cosn.org/Initiatives/ClassroomTotalCostofOwnership/TCOHome/tabid/511
8/Default.aspx
o Broadband Knowledge Center:
http://www.cosn.org/Initiatives/BroadbandKnowledgeCenter/tabid/4683/Default.aspx
20
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)
 The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) is a membership association for
educators and education leaders engaged in improving learning and teaching by advancing the
effective use of technology in PK–12 and teacher education. ISTE represents more than 100,000
education leaders and emerging leaders throughout the world and informs its members
regarding educational issues of national and global scope.
o Website link: http://www.iste.org/welcome.aspx
Internet 2
 Internet2 is a not-for-profit advanced networking consortium comprising (as of June, 2011) 221
U.S. universities, in cooperation with 45 leading corporations, 66 government agencies,
laboratories, and other institutions of higher learning, 35 regional and state research and
education networks, and more than 100 national research and education networking
organizations representing over 50 countries. Internet2 members leverage its high-performance
network, enabling services and worldwide partnerships to support and enhance their
educational, research, and community service missions. Beyond providing network capacity,
Internet2 engages its community in the development of important new technologies including
middleware, security, network research, and performance measurement capabilities which are
critical to the forward progress Internet applications.
o Website link: http://www.internet2.edu/
U.S. Department of Education: Race to the Top Assessment Public Meeting
 On April 15, 2011, the U.S. Department of Education held a public meeting on Technology
Infrastructure Needs in States, Districts, and Schools. The meeting included a panel of invited
guests from states who have made the transition to computer-based assessments to share
lessons learned during the transition.
o Website link: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/resources.html
SETDA Case Studies
 SETDA collected information and data from LEAs, administrators, grant managers, and teachers
to create case studies highlighting district examples using American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) funds.
o Website link: http://www.setda.org/web/guest/casestudies2012
21