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