SenateConcurrentResolution#22:TaskForceonStateEducationalTechnology
FinalReporttothe148thGeneralAssembly
March30,2016
A report of findings and recommendations regarding State Educational Technology in Delaware public schools.
TASK FORCE ON STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Michael Watson, Chair
The Townsend Building 401 Federal Street Suite 2
Dover, Delaware 19901-3639
March30,2016
To: Chairandmembers,BondCommittee Chairandmembers,JointFinanceCommittee Chairandmembers,HouseEducationCommittee Chairandmembers,SenateEducationCommitteeInearly2015,theSenateConcurrentResolutionNo.22directedthataTaskForcebeformedtoconductastudyoneducationaltechnologyandupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplantoensurethatallDelawarestudentshaveaccesstomodernandeffectiveeducationaltechnologiesthatenhancelearningandpromotecollegeandcareerreadiness.TheTaskForceonStateEducationalTechnologyhasspentthepastninemonthsworkingtofulfilltherequirementsofthisresolution.Wearepleasedtopresenttheresultsofthoseeffortsthroughthisreport.
ThankyoufortheopportunitytoserveourStateandcontributetoimprovingeducationthroughtheuseoftechnologyforourDelawarestudents.Wetrustyouwillfindthisreportusefulinaddressingthetechnologyandeducationneedsofourstudents,teachers,administrators,andschools.
OnbehalfoftheTaskForce,Iherebysubmitthisreportforyourconsideration.
Sincerely,
MichaelWatson,Chairperson
TaskForceMembers
Dr.TedAmmann Dr.DustyBlakey Dr.MicheleBrewer PatriciaDallas Rep.TimDukes Dr.KevinFitzgerald RobertFulton ColleenGause MatthewKorobkin MichaelLeague ElizabethLewis PatrickLiberato StevenMancini Dr.BethMineo KimberlyReinagel‐Nietubicz RandyReynolds MeganSzabo Sen.BryanTownsend MichaelWatson Dr.WayneHartschuh,StaffDirector PamReed,AdministrativeSecretary
Table of Contents
Overview of the Report and Planning Process ................................................................................................ 2
Task Force Members ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 10
Infrastructure and Leadership ....................................................................................................................... 11
National Perspective ............................................................................................................................... 11
Delaware Perspective ............................................................................................................................. 13
Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Infrastructure and Leadership ............................................ 18
Teaching and Learning .................................................................................................................................. 22
National Perspective ............................................................................................................................... 22
Delaware Perspective ............................................................................................................................. 25
Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Teaching and Learning ........................................................ 33
Assistive Technology ..................................................................................................................................... 38
National Perspective ............................................................................................................................... 38
Delaware Perspective ............................................................................................................................. 39
Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Assistive Technology ........................................................... 41
Current Funding Streams for Educational Technology ................................................................................. 43
Funding Recommendations for Our Path Forward ....................................................................................... 45
References ..................................................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix A: Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 22 ...................................................................................... 50
Appendix B: Teacher Survey .......................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix C: Infrastructure Survey ................................................................................................................ 63
Appendix D: Annual Delaware School Technology Survey ............................................................................ 66
Appendix E: Educational Technology Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations ......................................... 67
2
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Overview of the Report and Planning Process TheTaskForceonStateEducationalTechnologywasformedbySenateConcurrentResolutionNo.22bythe148thGeneralAssemblyoftheStateofDelaware(AppendixA)tostudyeducationaltechnologyandupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplantoensurethatallDelawarestudentshaveaccesstomodernandeffectiveeducationalandassistivetechnologiesthatenhancelearningandpromotecollegeandcareerreadiness.
TheTaskForce’sinitialmeetingwasThursday,July9,2015.TheTaskForcemembersreviewednationalreportsoneducationaltechnologyanddecidedthattherewerethreeover‐archingareasthatneededtobeconsideredintheplan:InfrastructureandLeadership,TeachingandLearning,andAssistiveTechnology.TheTaskForceformedsub‐committeesrelatedtoeachofthesethreeareas.
Duringthefallof2015,theTaskForceconductedtwosurveysrelatedtothecurrentuseofeducationaltechnologyinourschoolsandclassroomsandthereadinessofteacherstoteachusingeducationaltechnology.The“teacher”survey(AppendixB)wasusedtodetermineuseoftechnologyinourschoolsandteacherattitudes.The“infrastructure”survey(AppendixC)wasusedtodeterminebroadbandissuesandaccessrelatedtoinfrastructureattheLEA(LocalEducationAgency–includesdistrictsandcharters)level.
TheTaskForce,asawholeandasthethreesub‐committees,metregularlybetweenJuly2015andMarch2016reviewingnationalreportsandactivities,previousstrategicplansfromtheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnology,reportsfromotherstates,surveydatafromtheteacherandinfrastructuresurveys,andotherdiscussionsanddocumentationthatprovidedacurrentstatusofeducationaltechnologyinDelawareschools.
Thisreportisorganizedaroundthesethreeareasandpresentsfirst,anationalperspective,thentheperspectiveofwhereDelawarehasbeen,wherewearenow,andwhereweneedtogo.ThenationalandDelawareperspectivesleadtothegoalsandtheirassociatedstrategies,andrecommendationsmadeinthisreport.Someoftherecommendationshavebudgetramificationsandsomehavetodowithpolicy,procedures,andactivities.
TheTaskForcefirmlybelievesthatDelawareneedstoprovideaneducationalenvironmentintegratedwithtechnologythatalignswiththeneedsofstudentsastheyprepareforbeingcollegeandcareerready.TheTaskForcebelievesthattheresultofthistechnology‐richenvironmentwillbeaneducationinfrastructureandteachingandlearningecosystemthatwillprovidetheappropriatetools,resourcesandsupportforDelaware’shard‐workingeducatorsandstudentsandwillbeabletogrowandprogresssothatthestudentsthriveandcontributepositivelytoDelaware’seconomyandculture.
Insummary,theTaskForcereviewedtechnologyuseinourpubliceducationschoolsandclassroomsandhasmadegoals,strategies,andassociatedrecommendations(AppendixE)throughthisreport.ThisTaskForcereportwillbesubmittedtotheChairandmembersoftheBondCommittee,theJointFinanceCommitteeandtheHouseandSenateEducationCommitteesofthe148thGeneralAssemblybyMarch30,2016.
3
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Task Force Members MichaelWatson,Chair–ChiefAcademicOfficer/AssociateSecretaryofEducation,
DelawareDepartmentofEducation
Dr.TedAmmann–Assist.Superintendent,RedClayConsolidatedSchoolDistrict
Dr.DustyBlakey–Superintendent,ColonialSchoolDistrict
Dr.MicheleBrewer–AssistantProfessor,TechnologyChair,WilmingtonUniversity
PatriciaDallas–Teacher,RedClayConsolidatedSchoolDistrict
RepresentativeTimDukes–HouseEducationCommittee
Dr.KevinFitzgerald–Superintendent,CaesarRodneySchoolDistrict
RobertFulton–Superintendent,CapeHenlopenSchoolDistrict
ColleenGause–Telecommunications,DepartmentofTechnologyandInformation
KimberlyReinagel‐Nietubicz–SeniorLegislativeAnalyst,OfficeofControllerGeneral
MatthewKorobkin–SpecialEducationOfficer,DelawareDepartmentofEducation
MichaelLeague–InstructionalTechnologyCoach,IndianRiverSchoolDistrict
ElizabethLewis–SeniorFiscal&PolicyAnalyst,OfficeofManagementandBudget
PatrickLiberato–TechnologyCoordinator,CharterSchoolofWilmington
StevenMancini–Supervisor,Inform.&Inst.Technology,NewCastleCountyVo‐Tech
Dr.BethMineo–Director,CenterforDisabilitiesStudies,UniversityofDelaware
RandyReynolds–InformationTechnologySupervisor,CapeHenlopenSchoolDistrict
MeganSzabo–Delaware's2015TeacheroftheYear,CaesarRodneySchoolDistrict
SenatorBryanTownsend–SenateEducationCommittee
Othercontributorstothisworkinclude:
Dr.WayneHartschuh–DCETExecutiveDirector,DelawareDepartmentofEducation
Dr.GeoffFletcher–Principal,GHFletcherConsulting
GeriDonahue–AdministrativeSecretary,DelawareDepartmentofEducation
PamReed–AdministrativeSecretary,DelawareDepartmentofEducation
KimRodriguez–AidetoChiefAcademicOfficer,DelawareDepartmentofEducation
4
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Executive Summary Technologyhasincreasinglytransformedthewaypeoplelivetheirlives,influencingsuchaspectsascommunication,artisticendeavors,andmethodsofteachingandlearning.Educationacrossthenationisstrugglingtokeepupwiththeneedsofcompanieshiringitsgraduates,collegesanduniversitieshavinghigherexpectationsandpossiblymostimportant,strugglingtokeepupwiththeneedsofits“clients,”thechildrenintheeducationsystem.Studentsgrowingupinatechnologicallyinfusedculturelearndifferently,interactdifferentlyandengagewithtechnologydailyinallaspectsoftheirlives.
Aseducatorscontinuallystrivetofindthebestwaystoconnectwithtoday’sdigitallearners,theysearchforinnovativewaystointegratenewtechnologiesaspartofthatprocessineffortstoincreasestudentachievement,shrinkaccessibilitygaps,andpreparestudentsforaglobaleconomy.Technology,whenintegratedeffectivelyintoteachingandlearning,canbeapowerfultoolthatextendslearningbeyondtheclassroomwalls.Wemustrecognizeandsupporttechnologyasanessentialcomponentinengagingallstudentsmorefullyinlearning.
Tothatend,theDelaware148thGeneralAssemblypassedSenateConcurrentResolutionNo.22callingfortheestablishmentofataskforcetostudystateeducationaltechnologyandupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplantoensurethatallDelawarestudentshaveaccesstomodernandeffectiveeducationaltechnologiesthatenhancelearningandpromotecollegeandcareerreadiness.
WhiletheTaskForcehasfollowedthedirectivefromtheGeneralAssemblytoupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplan,ithasputitsfocuslessonthetechnologyandmoreonwhatthetechnologycanbringintheteachingandlearningprocess.ThustheTaskForcehaskepttheDelawarestudentsandtheentireeducationenterprisetopofmindinitsworkbecausetechnologynolongercanbeviewedasanisolatedsilo.Instead,technologyinfuseseverypartofeducation.TheplanhasbeencraftedwiththeintenttobeinextricablylinkedtobroaderstateplansandincoordinationwiththeDelawareDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology.
Becauserecentstudiespurportthatthethreebiggestbarrierstotechnologyadoptionarethelackofleadershipsupport,lackoffinancialsupportfortrainingandinfrastructure,andlackofqualityprofessionaldevelopment,theTaskForceaddressedinfrastructureandleadership,teachingandlearning,andassistivetechnologythroughoutthestateasthefocifortheplan.
Infrastructure and Leadership Infrastructureisdefinedasallaspectsofthenetworkthatconnectsstudents,teachers,andadministratorstoavastarrayofresourcesontheInternetandpeopleworldwide.ItalsoincludesthepersonnelatthestateandintheLEAstoensurethatthenetworkscontinuetooperateefficientlyandeffectively.TwodecadesagowhenDelawarewasaleaderamongstatesinmanyaspectsoftechnology‐relatededucationbycreatingaK‐12network,infrastructuremeantaconnectionfromtheInternettotheschool,connectionsamongschoolsandawiredconnectiontoeachclassroom.Withagrowingrelianceinschoolstodayonmobiledevices,suchaslaptopsandtablets,wiredconnectionswithinschoolsarenolongernearlyaspractical.Wi‐Fiisrequired.Inaddition,becauseoftheacceleratingdemandforaccesstobroadbandandtherichresourcesitcanbring,thestateneedstoprovide
5
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
ongoingexpansionandupdatingofthenetworktocatchupwiththedemandofteachersandstudentsastheysolvereal‐worldproblemsandcreatecontentaswellasusecontent.TheincreasingsophisticationofthenetworksdemandssufficienttechnicalsupportineveryLEAtoensurethenetworksarerunningefficientlyandtimeandmoneydoesnotgotowastebecauseofabrokenconnectionorothertechnicalproblem.Currentlythestatehasaratioofonetechnicalsupportpersonforevery733computersusedforinstruction,whilethestandardforbusinessisonetechnicalsupportpersontoevery150devices.Thislackoftechnicalsupportendangerstheinvestmentintechnologyaswellaslearningforstudents.Finally,“thehomeworkgap,”studentswithoutbroadbandaccessathome,isaproblemformanyDelawarestudents.Thishomeworkgapdisproportionatelyimpactsrural,westernKentandSussexcountieswithsomeestimatessuggestingthatashighas40%offamilieslivingintheseareasmaynotcurrentlyhaveapathtosecurebroadbandservice.
DelawarewasoneofthefirststatesinthenationtofocusoneducationaltechnologybyprovidingstatewideleadershipwhentheLegislatureformedtheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologyattherecommendationofGovernorThomasR.Carperin1995.Thatleadershiphasbecomebifurcated,resultinginadiminishedcapacitytoleadandsupportLEAsastheyseektoprovidethebesteducationfortheirstudents.Ineachoftheseareas,Delawareneedstoreclaimitspriorleadership.Thefollowinggoals,ifaccomplished,willtakeamajorsteptoplacingDelawareinaleadingpositioninthecountry:
Goal1–Leadership:ThestatewillhaveanoversightorganizationtoprovidestrategicguidanceforeducationaltechnologyforthestateandLEAs.
Goal2–BroadbandandSupport:ThestatewidenetworkcorethatprovidesandsupportsbroadbandaccessandinternalnetworkstoallDelawarepublicschoolswillbemaintainedandgrownbyprovidingcontinuousimprovementandexpansionoftheinfrastructuretomeettheneedsoftheeducationcommunity.
Teaching and Learning TheidealandmosteffectiveandefficientscenarioforDelawarestudentsisforeverystudenttohaveafullyfunctioningdeviceatschoolandathome,arobustconnectiontotheInternet,devicesandconnectionsthatworkallthetime,andmostimportantly,ahighlyengagedteacherequippedwiththeskillsandknowledgetoeffectivelyandpurposefullyintegratetechnologyintolearning.Whilethisscenariomayseemloftyanddifficulttoreachineducation,itisthenormforvirtuallyeverybusinessinthestate.Itisnottoomuchtoexpectthatinthemiddleoftheseconddecadeofthe21stcentury,studentsandteachershavethesamefundamentaltoolstoensureDelawarestudentsarereadyfortheworkforceandtobefullyfunctioningcitizensofthestateandthenation.
The2015‐2016AnnualDelawareSchoolTechnologySurveyshowsapproximately110,700devicesforinstructioninDelawareschools.Withapproximately135,000Delawarestudents,thestateisnotnear1studentperdeviceandwith34,500ofthedevicesincomputerlabsorLibrary/MediaCenters,andothersoncarts,itisreasonabletoassumeonlyasmallpercentageofthemaregoinghomewithstudents.Thescenariootherbusinessesoperatewith–eachemployeehasatleastonewell‐supportedcomputingdeviceconnectedtotheInternet–isfarfromrealityforDelawarestudents.LEAsneedadditionalsupporttoensuretheirstudentshavethecapabilitytoaccessalltheresourcesnecessarytobecomecollegeandcareerready.
6
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Thenotionofwell‐prepared,effectiveteachershasalwaysbeenatthecoreoflearningforstudents.Withthechangeinstudentstandards,approachestoassessment,instructionalapproachestoenablestudentstolearnthestandardsaswellastheinfluxoftechnologythroughschools,theneedforhighqualityprofessionallearninghasneverbeengreater.
Teacherpreparationprogramshaveresponsibilitytoprepareteachersinawiderangeofareasinashortperiodoftime.Similarly,ongoingprofessionaldevelopmentforpracticingteachersmustmirrortheneedsoftoday’sdigitallearners.AstechnologicalchangehasflowedthroughsocietyandlessrapidlythroughPre‐K–12education,teachingabouttheintegrationoftechnologythroughoutteachingandlearninghasbeenslowtopermeateteacherpreparationprograms.Asaresult,manyteachersrespondingtothesurveyadministeredinlatefall2015feelill‐preparedtousetechnologyeffectivelyandarecravingprofessionallearningtohelpthem.Thefollowinggoals,ifaccomplished,willtakeamajorsteptoensuringDelawarestudentshavethetoolstheyneedforfullengagementintheirlearningandDelawareteachershavetheongoingsupporttokeepuptodatewiththelatestinstructionalmethodsandresourcestohelptheirstudentslearneffectivelyandefficiently:
Goal3–ComputingDevices:Bythe2019‐2020schoolyear,allstudentswillhaveaccesstoacomputingdeviceatschoolandathome,toenhancelearningandprovidethemwithtechnologyskillsandsavvy.
Goal4–TeacherPreparation:By2020,allstudentsgraduatingteacherpreparationprogramsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinusingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheISTEStandardsforTeachers.
Goal5–ProfessionalLearning:PracticingeducatorsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinintegratingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)andtheISTEStandardsforTeachersandconsistentwithPSBRegulations1598and1599andfollowing.
Goal6–BlendedLearningtoPersonalizeInstruction:Studentsandeducatorswillhaveaccesstoastatewideonlinevirtualnetworkthatwillincludedigitalresourcesanddataanalysiscapabilitiestodeliverblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstructionforstudents.
Assistive Technology InDelaware,assistivetechnology(AT)consideration,accessanduseisquiteunevenacrossLEAs,andevenfromschooltoschoolandclassroomtoclassroom.OtherthanareiterationofthefederalrequirementsregardingATintheDelawareAdministrativeManualforSpecialEducationServices,theDelawareDepartmentofEducationhasissuednoadditionalguidancetoLEAsregardingATconsideration,accessanduse.Asevidencedindatacollectedatmanyjunctures,educationpersonnelfeelillequippedtomeettheirAT‐relatedobligationstostudentsbecauseofconfusionregardingrolesandresponsibilities,considerationandevaluationprocesses,andacquisitionmechanisms(includingfundingissues).
TremendousbarrierstoATaccessarisefromtheperceivedlackoffundingforAT.PersonnelareimplicitlyandexplicitlyurgedtoavoidconsiderationofATforfearofthefiscalimplications,andthereseemstobeverylimitedawarenessofhowtomaximizemultiplesourcesoffinancialsupportforATaccess.
Inmanyinstances,therequirementtoconsiderATforallstudentsforwhomanIEPisdevelopedisignored,andthedeploymentofATexpertiseacrossLEAsisquiteuneven.
7
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
SomeLEAshavededicatedATSpecialistsonstaffthatsupportteamdecision‐makingandassisteducatorsinimplementingATeffectively.OtherLEAshavenoformalizedmechanisms–andthepersonnelwhosupporttheirimplementation–relativetoATaccess,despitetheclearmandatesforATaccessanduseinIDEA.Thefollowinggoals,ifaccomplished,willensurethatallstudentshaveaccesstothedevicesnecessaryfortheirlearningandallteachershavetheknowledgeandexpertisenecessarytousetheirtoolsappropriately:
Goal7‐AssistiveTechnology:Student:Ensureallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilities,willhaveaccesstotechnologythatwillhelpthemlearnandachieve.
Goal8‐AssistiveTechnology:Educators:Alleducatorswillhavesufficientknowledge,skills,anddispositions—aswellasaccesstoconsistentandpredictableacquisitionmechanisms—toensurethatstudentswithdisabilitieshaveaccesstotheATneededforengagement,learningandskilldemonstration.
Funding Eachoftheeightgoalshasmultiplestrategiesthatinturnleadtorecommendations,someofwhichhavebudgetramificationsandsomeofwhichhavetodowithpolicy,procedures,andactivities.Goals,strategiesandrecommendationsareincludedineachsectionandsummarizedinAppendixE.
TheTaskForcefirmlybelievesthatDelawareneedstoprovideaneducationalenvironmentintegratedwithtechnologythatalignswiththeneedsofstudentsastheyprogressdownthepathtobeingcollegeandcareerready.IfDelawareisseriousaboutcreatinganeducationalenvironmentthatmatchestheneedsofstudentswhoareconstantlyengagedwithtechnologyoutsidetheschool,studentswhosepathstocareers,whetherthroughcollegeordirectlyintocareers,aremorerigorousandtrulydifferentfrompathsofearliergenerations,thenthestateshouldadopt,implementandfundthegoals,strategiesandrecommendations.
Notallgoals,strategies,andrecommendationshavedirectbudgetimplications,butthosethatdomustbeaddressed.Theremustbeconsistent,dedicatedfundingstreamstoaddress:
thenetworkcore,broadbandaccess,InternetaccessandassociatedservicesasprovidedbytheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation;
internalschoolnetworks,includingwirelessaccess,toachievea5–7yearreplacementcycle;
atechnologyallocationfundthatcanbeusedtopurchaseorleasecomputingdevices,providetechnicalsupport,andprovideforprofessionallearningforeducators;
thematchingprovisionsoftheTechnologyBlockGrantfortechnologysupport; theexpansionandgrowthofeLearningDelaware; astatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources; theperstudentcostofthelearningmanagementsystemforK‐12studentuse;and assistivetechnologyforstudentswithdisabilities.
8
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Budget Recommendation Summary
FY17 Amount PurposeBudgetRecommendation1
$3,000.0 Increasesthebandwidthofelementaryschoolsto100Mbpsandallsecondaryschoolsto1GbpsandassociatedcoreservicesatDTI*
BudgetRecommendation5
NoCost ChangesEpiloguelanguagefortheTechnologyBlockGrant(FY16EpilogueSection344)toinclude“instructionalpersonnel”
BudgetRecommendation6
$1,000.0 IncreasesTechnologyBlockGrant*
BudgetRecommendation11
$48.0 IncreasesthebudgetfortheLearningManagementSystemtoaccommodateadditionalstudentparticipation**
FY18 Amount PurposeBudgetRecommendation2
$1,200.0 Increasesbandwidthforallschoolsto1GbpsandassociatedcoreservicesatDTItoalignwiththeFCC/SETDAguidelinesfor2017‐2018
BudgetRecommendation3/4
$1,250.0 Establishes anE‐rateCategory2fundingstream
BudgetRecommendation7
$2,650.0 MovesexistingfundingforassessmentcomputerstoTechnologyBlockGrant
BudgetRecommendation8
$1,000.0 IncreasesTechnologyBlockGrant (minimumamount)
BudgetRecommendation9
NoCost AdjuststhematchingprovisionfortechnologysupportintheTechnologyBlockGrantsothematchisagainsttheblockgrantratherthantheFY98match
BudgetRecommendation10
$500.0 IncreasesfundingforeLearningDelaware(DDOE)tosupportonlineprofessionallearning,collaborationopportunities,andastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources
BudgetRecommendation12
TBD –Fall2016
Increasesfundingforassistive technologybaseduponDDOE'scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology,perFY15EpilogueSection307
FY19 Amount PurposeBudgetRecommendation8
$1,000.0 IncreasesTechnologyBlockGrant (minimumamount)
BudgetRecommendation10
$250.0 IncreasesfundingforeLearningDelaware(DDOE)tosupportonlineprofessionallearning,collaborationopportunities,andastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources
*IncludedinDDOE'ssubmittedbudgetrequestforFY17andincludedintheGovernor'sRecommendedBudgetwithinDTI.
**IncludedinDDOE'ssubmittedbudgetrequestforFY17with$30.0includedintheGovernor'sRecommendedBudgetforactualcosts.$18.0foradditionalstudentparticipationnotincluded.
TheTaskForcebelievesthattheresultwillbeaneducationinfrastructureandteachingandlearningecosystemthatwillbeabletogrowandprogresswiththeneedsofallstudentsinthestate.Theresultantecosystemwillprovidetheappropriatetools,resourcesandsupportforDelaware’shard‐workingeducatorsandstudentssothatthestudentsthriveandtheycontributepositivelytoDelaware’seconomyandculture.
9
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
TaskForceonStateEducationalTechnology
AReporttothe148thGeneralAssemblyonthe
StateEducationalTechnologyPlan
March30,2016
10
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Introduction Technologyhasincreasinglytransformedthewaypeoplelivetheirlives,influencingsuchaspectsascommunication,artisticendeavors,andmethodsofteachingandlearning.Educationacrossthenationisstrugglingtokeepupwiththeneedsofcompanieshiringitsgraduates,collegesanduniversitieshavinghigherexpectationsandpossiblymostimportant,strugglingtokeepupwiththeneedsofits“clients,”thechildrenintheeducationsystem.Thisstruggleisdue,inlargepart,tothefactthattechnologicalinnovationinthepasthalfcenturyhasvirtuallyimpactedallsectorsoftheU.S.economyatanincreasingpace.Asaresult,employersarerequiringnewskillsetsfromtoday’sgraduates.Collegesareadjustingtoemployers’needsaswellasotherneedsofstudents,thuscreatingdifferentexpectationsforhighschoolgraduates.Studentsgrowingupinatechnologicallyinfusedculturelearndifferently,interactdifferentlyandengagewithtechnologydailyinallaspectsoftheirlives.
Aseducatorscontinuallystrivetofindthebestwaystoconnectwithtoday’sdigitallearners,theysearchforinnovativewaystointegratenewtechnologiesaspartofthatprocessineffortstoincreasestudentachievement,shrinkaccessibilitygaps,andpreparestudentsforaglobaleconomy.Technology,whenintegratedeffectivelyintoteachingandlearning,canbeapowerfultoolthatextendslearningbeyondtheclassroomwalls.TheeducationallandscapeinDelawarenowincludes;podcasting,blogging,videoconferencing,blendedlearning,andpersonalizedlearning,andassuch,wemustrecognizeandsupporttechnologyasanessentialcomponentinengagingallstudentsmorefullyinlearning.
In1997,whenthefirstDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnology(DCET)StrategicPlan(FY1997‐FY1999)waswritten,computerswerescarceinourschools,notallclassroomswerewiredfortheInternet,andlaptopswerebulkyandexpensive.TheDCETvisionof“TheFirstStateinEducation:EveryClassroom,EveryTeacher,EveryChild”establishedthecommitment“tohelpempowerchildren,throughtheuseofinformationtechnology,toachievehigherstandardsineducation.”[1]AlthoughDelawarehasbeentoutedasaleaderinthenationformanyofourtechnologyefforts,whichhasledtomultipleaccolades,thereisstillmuchworktobedone.
Today,studentsandteachersareembracingnewtechnologiesatarapidpaceandarecomfortableusingitintheirdailylives.Tothatend,theDelaware148thGeneralAssemblypassedSenateConcurrentResolutionNo.22callingfortheestablishmentofataskforcetostudystateeducationaltechnologyandupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplan.
WhiletheTaskForcehasfollowedthedirectivefromtheGeneralAssemblytoupdatethestateeducationaltechnologyplan,ithasputitsfocuslessonthetechnologyandmoreonwhatthetechnologycanbringintheteachingandlearningprocess.ThustheTaskForcehaskepttheDelawarestudentsandtheentireeducationenterprisetopofmindinitsworkbecausetechnologybenolongerbeviewedasanisolatedsilo.Instead,technologyinfuseseverypartofeducation.Tothatend,theplanhasbeencraftedwiththeintenttobeinextricablylinkedtobroaderstateplansandincoordinationwiththeDelawareDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology.
Thisplanfocusesontechnology’sroleinInfrastructureandLeadership,TeachingandLearning,andAssistiveTechnologyfromboththenationalandDelawareperspectivesleadingtostrategiestoaccomplishgoalsineachofthoseareas.Thestrategiesleadto
11
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
recommendations,someofwhichhavebudgetramificationsandsomeofwhichhavetodowithpolicy,procedures,andactivities.
ThewayweeducatestudentstodaymustkeeppacewithaneverchanginginterconnectedsocietyandDelawaremustpositionitselftodojustthat.Agrowingbodyofresearchfindsthat,undertherightcircumstances,theadoptionofnewtechnologieswillspreadbydiffusion.Recentstudiespurportthatthethreebiggestbarrierstotechnologyadoptionarethelackofleadershipsupport,lackoffinancialsupportfortrainingandinfrastructure,andlackofqualityprofessionaldevelopment.AcloserlookatthecurrenteducationallandscapeinDelawarehighlightstheneedtoaddressinfrastructureandleadership,teachingandlearning,andassistivetechnologythroughoutthestate.FollowingarekeymajortrendsanddevelopmentsaffectingcurrentandfutureDelawarestudentsandeducators.
Infrastructure and Leadership
National Perspective Infrastructureisdefinedasallaspectsofthenetworkthatconnectsstudents,teachers,andadministratorstoavastarrayofresourcesontheInternetandpeopleworldwideandthepersonneltoensurethatthenetworkscontinuetooperateefficientlyandeffectively.Justasthereisanunderlyingstructurecarryingwaterfromareservoirthroughacleaningandfilteringsystemundergroundtoahomeandthroughpipestoafaucetenablingaglassofwatertodrink,sotooatechnologicalinfrastructureleadingfromtheInternettotheLEAtotheschooltoastudent’sdesktopiscrucialtoaccesstheresourcesnecessarytolearnandteachinthe21stcentury.Leadershipisthelinchpinbetweenthetechnologyandteachingandlearningandassistivetechnology.Withoutthecommitmentofschool,district,stateandnationalleadershiptotheeffectiveandefficientuseoftechnologyinschoolsandensuringalleducatorsarepreparedandequallycommittedtousingthattechnology,enormousmonetaryinvestmentsoftaxpayermoneycanandwillbesquandered.
Bandwidth and Wi‐Fi Nationally,aneducationinfrastructurewasacceleratedbythecreationoftheE‐rateprogram.TheE‐rateprogram('E'standsforeducation)wasformedbytheTelecommunicationsActof1998toprovidediscountstoschoolsandlibrariesfortelecommunicationservices.TheE‐rate,thethirdlargestfederaleducationprogram,hadanearlygoalofconnectingallschoolstotheInternet.Overafewshortyears,thedemandforbandwidthineducationhasdoubledeverytwotothreeyears.Since2013,theFederalCommunicationsCommission(FCC)expandedthesizeoftheE‐rateprogramby60%‐from$1.5billionayearto$3.9billionayear–andincreasedafocusonwireless(Wi‐Fi)withintheschoolsinanattempttoensureeachcomputingdeviceinaschool,notjusteachschool,couldreachtheInternet.Thisfirstmajoroverhauloftheprogramin17years,dubbed“E‐rateModernization,”tookplacetoemphasizebroadbandaccessandprovideformoreequitableuseoffundsforinternalbroadbandconnectionsincludingwireless.[2]
Thegoalofthisincreaseinsupport,inadditiontoeffortstomaketheprogrammoretransparent,streamlinedandeasytouse,istoensurethatneitherbroadbandaccesstotheschoolsnorthedistributionofsignalswithinabuildingwillbeahindrancetoeducatorsandstudentsaccessingtheincrediblearrayofresourcesontheInternetorcommunicatingwith
12
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
theirpeersaroundtheworld.ThatgoalwillnotbereachedwithoutsubstantialeffortonthepartofstatesandLEAs.
However,manystudentsstilllackaccessathome,aconditionthatFCCCommissionerJessicaRosenworcelhasnamed“thehomeworkgap.”[3]AccordingtothePewCenter,approximatelyonethirdofhouseholdswithschool‐agedchildrenandincomesbelow$50,000inthecountrydonothavehigh‐speedbroadbandathome,andthislow‐incomegroupmakesupabout40%ofallfamilieswithschool‐agedchildren.[4]ProjectTomorrow,anot‐forprofitorganization,hasbeensurveyingstudents,teachersandparentsregardingtheirattitudesabout,anduseof,technologyfor13years.Inthisyear’ssurvey,theyaskedteachers,“AgreeorDisagree:Iamsometimesreluctanttoassigndigitally‐basedorInternetrequiredhomeworkorprojectstomyclasssincesomeofmystudentsmaynothavesafe,consistentaccesstotheInternetoutsideofschool.”TheresultsarebelowinTable1.[5]
Table1.NationalSampleofTeachersReluctanttoAssignDigitally‐basedHomeworkDuetoLackofDevicesorInternet
ConnectionatHomeResponse NationalpercentageStronglydisagree 5%Disagree 8%Neitheragreeordisagree 18%Agree 33%Stronglyagree 35%
Morethantwo‐thirdsofthissampleofthenation’steachershastoaltertheirplanstohelpstudentslearnbecauseofconcernregardingstudents’accesstoresourcesoutsideofschool.
Thereareafeweffortsonanationalleveltoalleviatethehomeworkgap.Forexample,inactiontakeninJune2015,theFCCvotedtoincludebroadbandconnectionsina$1.8billionfederalprogramthatsubsidizestelephoneservicesforlow‐incomepeople.[6]Inaddition,theDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmentisleadingasmalleffortin28communitiestoincreaseInternetaccessforlow‐incomefamilies,andtheprivatesector,inresponsetoproddingfromtheFCC,launchedConnect2Competein2011.[7]Thisprogram,offeredinpartnershipwithmajorcableproviders,offersInternetserviceforaslowas$9.95amonthandlow‐costdevicesaswelltostudentsandfamiliesthatqualifyfortheNationalSchoolLunchProgram.However,therealsolutiontothehomeworkgapwillbeatthestateandlocallevels,workingcloselywithtelecommunicationsprovidersandlocalbusinessestorecognizethedemandandneedforsufficientbandwidthforeveryoneinthecommunity.
Federal Leadership TheU.S.DepartmentofEducationestablishedanOfficeofEducationalTechnology(OET)asapartoftheOfficeoftheSecretaryofEducationduringtheClintonAdministration.CurrentinitiativesfromtheOfficeincludetheConnectEDprogramtohelpschoolsgetconnectedtobroadbandInternet;workingtoensurethereisequalaccesstotechnologyandinstructionalmaterialsforallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilities,regardlessofrace,colorornationalorigin;encouragingtheuseofopenlylicensededucationalresourcesorOER;advocatingforandprovidingprofessionallearning;workingtoensuretheprotectionofprivacyandsecurityforstudents,educatorsandallinvolvedinschools;andstriving“tobe
13
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
onthenexusoftransformativeresearchandthecurators(of)innovativeeventstoserveanimpactfulresourcetotheevolvingsystem.”TheOETalsohasworkedthroughouttheDepartmenttoassistinunderstandinghowtechnologycanfurtherthegoalsofotherOfficesandworkedacrossagenciessuchastheFederalCommunicationsCommissionwhenitdevelopedtheNationalBroadbandPlan.
TheOfficewasalsoresponsibleforcreatingthe2016NationalEducationTechnologyPlan,FutureReadyLearning:ReimaginingtheRoleofTechnologyinEducation.[8]TheplanhassectionsonLearning,Teaching,Leadership,AssessmentandInfrastructurewithagoalandrecommendationsineachsection.Thosegoalsare:
Learning:Alllearnerswillhaveengagingandempoweringlearningexperiencesinbothformalandinformalsettingsthatpreparethemtobeactive,creative,knowledgeable,andethicalparticipantsinourgloballyconnectedsociety.
Teaching:Educatorswillbesupportedbytechnologythatconnectsthemtopeople,data,content,resources,expertise,andlearningexperiencesthatcanempowerandinspirethemtoprovidemoreeffectiveteachingforalllearners.
Leadership:Embedanunderstandingoftechnology‐enablededucationwithintherolesandresponsibilitiesofeducationleadersatalllevelsandsetstate,regional,andlocalvisionsfortechnologyinlearning.
Assessment:Atalllevels,oureducationsystemwillleveragethepoweroftechnologytomeasurewhatmattersanduseassessmentdatatoimprovelearning.
Infrastructure:Allstudentsandeducatorswillhaveaccesstoarobustandcomprehensiveinfrastructurewhenandwheretheyneeditforlearning.[9]
Delaware Perspective WhileDelawarewasaleaderamongstatesinmanyaspectsoftechnology‐relatededucationinthepast,especiallyinconnectingschoolsandclassroomsbycreatingaK‐12networkin1997,Delawareisnolongerinthevanguard.Becauseoftheacceleratingdemandforaccesstobroadbandandtherichresourcesitcanbring,thestateneedstoprovideongoingexpansionandupdatingofthenetwork.DelawarealsowasoneofthefirststatesinthenationtofocusoneducationaltechnologybyprovidingstatewideleadershipwhentheLegislatureformedtheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologyattherecommendationofGovernorThomasR.Carperin1995.Thatleadershiphasbecomebifurcated,resultinginadiminishedcapacitytoleadandsupportLEAsastheyseektoprovidethebesteducationfortheirstudents.
Thereareanumberofelementstoinfrastructure,andallofthemarenecessaryforteachersandstudentstointegratetechnologythroughouttheteachingandlearningprocesstoengagestudentsandensuretheyarereadyforcollegeandcareers.Twokeyelementsareconnectionsfromthestudents’andteachers’computingdevicesthroughtotheInternet,andtechnicalsupporttoensurethedevicesandalltheconnectionsareworkingwell.Anotherfactor,professionallearningandotherassistanceforeducatorstohelpthemhavetheinstructionalandmanagementsupportnecessarytobesuccessfulintegratingtechnologyintolearning,isaddressedintheTeachingandLearningsection.
14
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Bandwidth and Wi‐Fi In1994,Delaware,throughtheOfficeofInformationServices(nowtheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation)createdtheK‐12DelawareEducationNetwork(DEN)withtheresultbeingthatInternetaccessbecamethestandardratherthantheexceptionthroughoutDelaware’spublicschools.Morespecifically,beginningin1996,theDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnology(DCET)wiredeverysinglepublicschoolclassroomwithvoice,data,coaxial,andfiberopticscablewithatleastonedataportfullyconnectedtotheDelawareEducationNetwork(DEN)andtheInternetwithaT1line(1.4Mbps)toeachschool.ThiseffortmadeDelawarethefirststateinthenationtohaveInternetandwideareanetworkaccessineverypublicschoolclassroom.Forthestate'sefforts,theDCETwasawardedaComputerworldSmithsonianAwardforClassroomNetworkingin1998.TheDCETthenpurchasedserversforthestatewidepupilaccountingsystem,upgradedthelocalareanetwork(LAN)electronics(hubsandswitches)intheschools,andimplementedtheCATV/VideoBroadcastProjectsoschoolscouldbroadcastacabletelevisionandmultiplevideosignalstoeveryclassroom.
TheDelawareDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation(DTI)–Engineering&Telecommunicationshascontinuedthisworksince2003bysupportingtheK‐12network,includingmanagingthelocalnetworksineveryparticipatingK‐12schoolandtheoverallK‐12wideareanetwork,managingalloftheswitchesandroutersineachschool,providingfilteredInternetconnectivitytoeachschool,managingthefirewallsthatprotectthisnetworkandahostofotherservicesrelatedtosecurityandantivirusprotection.Additionalsupportservicesincludeprovidingsecureaccesstothestatenetwork,listservicesfordistributedmessaginganda24/7servicedeskforissuemanagementandoutageresolution.
Withinthelastfiveyears,DTIhasprovidedthreemajorupgradesandenhancementstotheK‐12network–anupgradingofagingswitches,theimplementationofane‐mailsolution,andanupgradeofthevideoconferencingcoreservices.
AccordingtoEducationSuperhighway(ESH),anationalnot‐for‐profitorganizationthatisfocusedonupgradingInternetaccessineveryclassroomintheU.S.,Delawareisdoingratherwellwithitsconnectivitycomparedtootherstates,yetitstillhasawaytogotoensureallstudentshaveaccesstothetoolsandresourcesimportanttoensuretheyarecollegeandcareerready.[10]OnemeasureESHusesisthepercentageofschoolsthatarereadyfordigitallearningtoday,measuredbythenumberofschoolsthathaveaminimumof100kbpsperstudent,astandardrecommendedbytheStateEducationalTechnologyDirectorsAssociation(SETDA)andincorporatedintothegoalsoftheFCC’sE‐ratemodernizationprogram.[11]Bythatmeasure,only52%oftheDelawareschoolshavereachedtheminimumgoalestablishedbySETDAandtheFCCforthe2014‐2015schoolyear.Anothermeasureiswhetherornotaschoolhasthefiberconnectionsneededtomeetbandwidthtargets,andbecauseofthestate’spreviousefforts,100%oftheschoolshavefiber.
OthermeasuresofbandwidthwerecapturedinasurveyofLEAstakeninlatefall2015regardingtheirinfrastructures.Onequestionaddressedtheneedtoconnectstudentandteacherdevicestowireless(Wi‐Fi)inordertoensuretheyhaveubiquitousaccesswherevertheyareonacampus.Theresultsfromthesurveyshowasubstantialneed.
15
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Table2.PercentoftheDevicesinanLEAthatConnectviaWireless
PercentofDevices PercentofLEAs0%‐10% 0%11%‐25% 0%26%‐50% 22%51%‐75% 41%76%‐100% 38%
AlthoughsomeLEAsmayconnecttheirdevicesthroughhardwires,moreandmorepreferthecost‐savingsandflexibilityprovidedbywireless,especiallyasmoreandmoreportabledevicesareusedinschools.
WithE‐ratemodernization,thereisatremendousopportunitytoupgradetheinternaltelecommunicationsinfrastructure,includingwireless,ofDelawareschoolswiththesupportofE‐rateCategory2fundsatgreatcostsavings.WithE‐rateCategory2services,eachschoolcanrequestupto$150perstudentovera5‐yearperiod.UsingE‐ratediscountdataandstudentenrollmentforthe2015‐2016schoolyear,therewere135,152studentswhichmeansourschoolscanrequestover$20million($20,272.8)inE‐rateCategory2servicesthatwillbediscountedby$14,604.5(72.04%)withthebalance,overthefive‐yearfundingcycle,of$5,668.3beingtheresponsibilityoftheschools.
AnevaluationofE‐rateapplicationsforthe2015‐2016schoolyearshowsthatonlyninedistrictsandfourchartersappliedforCategory2fundsinthefirstyearofthefive‐yearcycle.DiscussionswiththeLEAsconcerningE‐rateapplicationsforthe2016‐2017schoolyearresultedineightdistrictsandfourchartersintendingtofile.Thisgivesatotalof13districts(somedistrictsarefilinginbothyears)andeightcharterschoolsinthefirsttwoyears–lessthanhalfofourLEAs.Thereisavarietyofreasonswhylessthanhalfhaveapplied,buttimeandeffort,understandingtheprogramandprocess,recentupgrades(andrealizingthattheyhavefiveyearstoaccessE‐ratefunds),andlackoffundsfortheschoolshareheadthelist.Currently,thisentirecostfallsontheLEAseventhoughtraditionallythestatehassupportedthetelecommunicationsinfrastructure.
AdditionalsavingscouldbegeneratedbyastatewideRFPforwirelessservicesandpotentiallyDTIoverseeingthestatewidewirelessinfrastructure.Theinfrastructuresurveyasked,“WouldyourLEAconsiderparticipatinginastatewideRFPandassociatedawardwiththeintentofreducingcostsofwirelessaccessinyourschool(s)?”Eighty‐fourpercentoftherespondentssaidtheywouldconsiderparticipatinginthestatewideRFP.
AcrucialelementinmakingsurestudentsandteacherscanaccesstheInternetisensuringthenetworkisworkingeffectivelyandefficiently,andthattakesskilledtechnicians.Likemoststates,DelawareischallengedtoprovideappropriatetechnicalsupportacrossallLEAs.
TheinfrastructuresurveyconductedbytheTaskForcegleanedtheequivalentofapproximately150fulltimetechnicalsupportpersonnelacrossourLEAs.Thesepersonnelsupportinstructionalandadministrativecomputingdevices(computersandtablets),servers,wiredandwirelessnetworks,interactivewhiteboards,audioenhancementssystems,printers,andavarietyofothertechnologies.Justlookingattheapproximately110,000instructionalcomputingdevicesinourschools,theratioofinstructionalcomputing
16
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
devicestosupportpersonnelisapproximately733to1.Thestandardforbusinessisatleastonetechnologysupportpersonper150devices.Whileeducationcurrentlycannotaffordsuchaninvestment,thepaucityoftechnologysupportjeopardizesnotonlyLEAs’investmentsinthetechnologyitself,butmoreimportant,students’learning.
In2014,astudybyBroadbandNow.com[12]andothersestimatedthat16%ofDelawareresidentsqualifiedasunderservedforbroadbandservicesbecauseeitherbroadbandservicewasnotavailableorthecostofbroadbandwasconsideredaboveareasonablemarketprice.SincethattimeDelawarehasexperiencedbroadbandexpansioninsomeareas,butobstaclestoadoption,includingcostanddigitalliteracyhaveshownnoimprovement.Thishomeworkgapdisproportionatelyimpactsrural,westernKentandSussexcountieswithsomeestimatessuggestingthatashighas40%offamilieslivingintheseareasmaynotcurrentlyhaveapathtosecurebroadbandservice.
Leadership TheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnology(DCET)wasformedasaresultofrecommendationsmadebytheEducationalTechnologyCommitteeinareporttitled“EducationalTechnology:AReporttotheGovernor,Legislature,andCitizensofDelaware”datedFebruary1995.Thecommitteewasestablishedin1994byHouseJointResolutionNo.27.Therewere29specificrecommendationsthatweresummarizedintosevenkeystrategiesinthereport:
CreatetheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologyastheoperatingandsupportorganizationfortheeducationnetwork.
EstablishaDelawareEducationNetworkandensureequalaccesstoandequityinthenetwork.
Wireeveryclassroomandprovidecomputingresourcesby1997.
Trainteachers,librarians,andschooladministratorsintheapplicationanduseoftechnology.
Identifycosts,securefunding,andprovideappropriatetechnologicalresourcesfortheschools.
PromotetheactivitiesoftheCentertothebenefitoftheeducationalcommunityandinsupportoftheeconomicdevelopmentobjectivesoftheState.
Collaborateandpartnerwithpubliclibraries,nonpublicschools,andthebusinesscommunity.
Inthespringof1995,theDelawareLegislatureacceptedtherecommendationofGovernorThomasR.CarpertoestablishtheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnology(DCET).TheCenterisintendedtocreateamoderneducationaltechnologyinfrastructureinDelaware’spublicschoolsforthepurposeofenablingstudents,throughtheuseofeducationaltechnologytomeettheacademicstandardssetbytheStateBoardofEducationandtodeveloptheskillsneededbyaworld‐classworkforce.
TheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologywasgovernedbyaten‐memberBoardconsistingofthreememberswhohadexpertiseinthefieldofcomputerinformation,threepublicschoolsuperintendents,twopublicschoolteachers,theStateSuperintendentorhisdesignee,andtheExecutiveDirectoroftheOfficeofInformationSystems.TheStateLibrarian,theStateBudgetDirector,ControllerGeneral,SecretaryofFinanceortheirdesignees,andonerepresentativedesignatedbyeachofthePresidentsofthethree
17
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Delawarepublicinstitutionsofhighereducation,wereex‐officio,non‐votingmembersoftheBoard.TheDCETOperationsofficiallybeganonFebruary1,1996withthehiringoftheExecutiveDirector.
Inaveryshortperiodoftime,Delawareleapedfrombeingtechnologypoorineducationtobuildingasolidfoundationforgrowthineducationaltechnology.
TheDCETlaunchedanumberofprojectsoverthepastnearlytwodecades.Thefirstwastheclassroomnetworkingproject,inwhich(asnotedabove)everypublicschoolclassroomwaswiredwithvoice,data,coaxial,andfiberopticscablewithatleastonedataportfullyconnectedtotheDelawareEducationNetwork(DEN)andtheInternet.
Afterthecompletionofthewiringproject,DCETimplementedtheServerandInfrastructureEnhancementProjectandtheCATV/VideoBroadcastProject.TheServerandInfrastructureEnhancementProjectallowedDCETtopurchasetheserversforthestatewidepupilaccountingsystem,ensureaninstructionalserverineveryschool,andbegintoupgradetheLANelectronicsintheschools.TheCATV/VideoBroadcastProjectensuredtheschoolscouldbroadcastacabletelevisionandmultiplevideosignalstoeveryclassroom.ThegoalfortheseupgradeswastosaveLEAsbothtimeandmoney,whetherbycuttingdownontravelexpensesbyconductingmeetingsthroughthevideoconferencingsystemorusingthepowerofvolumepurchasingfore‐mailservicesorexpandingthespeedandefficiencyoftheoverallK‐12networkthroughbetter,moreup‐to‐dateswitches.Inaddition,theLegislatureprovidedathree‐yearfundingstreamtothedistrictsforclassroomtechnologythatincludedamatchingcapabilityofusingthetaxbasetogeneratefundingfortechnologymaintenanceandsupport.
Thusinthelate1990sandearly2000s,DelawaremadeatremendouscommitmenttomaketechnologyanimportanttoolintheclassroombyplacingtheroadbedforconnectingDelawarepublicschoolstotheinformationhighway.However,in2003,theDCETwassplitupforoperationalefficiencyatthestatelevel,withthetechnicalstaffmovingtotheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformationandtheeducationstaffmovingtotheDelawareDepartmentofEducationandrevampingtheBoardofDirectorswithaneducationalfocus.In2009,theDCETBoardofDirectorswasdisbanded.Thepotentiallyunanticipatedsideeffectofthisactionwastherewasnospecificleadershipgroupforeducationaltechnologybecauseoversightandbudgetingfelltotwoseparateorganizations:DTIandDDOE.After2003,DCETwaschallengedbyinconsistentfinancescombinedwiththeresurgenceofWebapplicationsandsubscriptionservicesthatplacelargerdependencyonInternetaccess.
Inthepast10years,budgetaryconcernshavelimitedthegrowthoftechnologyineducation,unfortunatelyatatimewhentheuseoftechnologyinvirtuallyeveryotheraspectofoursocietyhasaccelerated.WehavebeenabletoensurethatallschoolshavemigratedfromaT1dataline(1.4Mbps)toaminimumtoa10Mbpsdataline,andhaveimplementedstatewideonlineassessment,afeatmanystatesarestillstrugglingwith.OursuccessfulonlineassessmentimplementationwasonlypossiblebecauseofDelaware’spreviouseffortsinestablishingastatewidetelecommunicationsinfrastructureandastatewidepupilaccountingsystem.
18
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Infrastructure and Leadership
Goal 1 – Leadership ThestatewillhaveanoversightorganizationtoprovidestrategicguidanceforeducationaltechnologyforthestateandLEAs.
Strategies 1. FormtheCouncilonEducationalTechnologywiththefollowingresponsibilities:
a. NeedsAssessment–Establishaprocessforidentifyingongoingtechnologyandhumanresourceneedsattheclassroom,campus,districtandstatelevels,includingatechnologyinventory.
b. Policy–Basedupontheneedsassessmentandotherconsiderations,recommendpolicyannually.
c. Budget–Recommendabudgetforstatewideeducationaltechnologyexpendituresannually.
d. Planning–Developongoing(three‐year)strategicplansforthestatethat“mesh”withotherplanningeffortsattheDepartmentofEducation(DDOE),theDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation(DTI),andotheragenciesanddevelopaframeworkandprocessforlocalplanningthatcoordinateswithotherplansatthelocallevelaswellasthestatestrategicplan.
e. SafetyandSecurity–Defineastatewideacceptableusepolicyandproceduresandaprocesstoensurealleducatorsandstudentsagreetothepolicy;ensureallLEAsarecompliantwiththefederalregulationsincludingtheChildren’sInternetProtectionAct(CIPA),Children'sOnlinePrivacyProtectionAct(COPPA),andFamilyEducationalRightsandPrivacyAct(FERPA).
f. Procurement–WorkcloselywiththeGovernmentSupportServicestoestablishafocalpointwithineducationforthepreparationoftechnology‐relatedRFPs,vendornegotiations,andsitelicensesforsoftwarespecifictoeducationtooptimizecoststhroughconsolidatingdemand.
Rationale: TheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologystaffwasre‐assignedtoDDOEandDTIin2003andtheDCETBoardofDirectorswasdisbandedin2009.TheunanticipatedsideeffectofdisbandingtheDCETBoardofDirectorswasthattheAdministrationandLegislaturelosttheleadershipgroupwithaunifiedvoicetokeepeducationaltechnologyissuesintheforefront.Withtheeconomicdownturnandoversightandbudgetingfallingtotwoseparateorganizationswithcompetingpriorities,Delawarehasfallenbehindandisintheunenviablepositionofplayingcatch‐up.
ThisisnottosaythatDelawarehasdonenothingtoadvanceeducationaltechnologyandourinfrastructuresince2009.Wejusthaven’tdoneenough.In2010,ouremphasiswasensuringtheinfrastructurewasinplaceforonlineassessment,notnecessarilydigitallearning.Ifallweweretryingtodowassupportonlineassessment,wehaveasufficientinfrastructureinplace.Ifwewanttosupportbothonlineassessmentanddigitallearning,whichwedo,wehavefallenbehind.
19
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Thetimehascometorefocusoureffortssoourstudentsandteachersaresuccessfulbyhavingaccesstotechnologyonadailybasis.InourDelawarepublicschools,thisstartswithleadershipatthestatelevelandprioritizingtoensurethat:(1)Ourtelecommunicationsinfrastructurehasthesufficientbandwidthforstudents;(2)Ourstudentshaveaccesstocomputingdevices;and(3)Ourteachershavesufficienttrainingtointegratetechnologytoutilizeandrelyondigitallearningopportunities.
Recommendation1.1.1: PresentLegislationtoformtheCouncilonEducationalTechnologythatwillbesupportedwithstafffromtheDDOEandDTI.TheCouncilshouldmeetquarterlyandhavenomorethan15memberscomprisedofstakeholderrepresentativesfromacrossthestate.
Goal 2 – Broadband and Support ThestatewidenetworkcorethatprovidesandsupportsbroadbandaccessandinternalnetworkstoallDelawarepublicschoolswillbemaintainedandgrownbyprovidingcontinuousimprovementandexpansionoftheinfrastructuretomeettheneedsoftheeducationcommunity.
Strategies 1. Providethenecessaryresourcestoensurethatthenetworkcore,broadbandaccess,
Internetaccess,andassociatedservicesprovidedbytheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformationcontinuallyalignwiththeStateEducationalTechnologyDirectorsAssociation(SETDA)recommendationsfromTheBroadbandImperativethatareincorporatedintotheFederalCommunicationsCommission(FCC)E‐ratemodernizationorderasagoal.
Rationale: In2010,Delawarewasabletosuccessfullyimplementastatewideonlineassessmentsysteminaveryshortperiodoftimebecauseofpreviouscommitmentstothestate’stelecommunicationsinfrastructureandstatewidepupilaccountingsystem.Atthatpoint,allschoolswereupgradedfromaT1line(1.4Mbps)to10Mbpsandtheswitchinginfrastructurewasupgraded.Ahalfdecadelater,10Mbpsstillremainsasthebaselinefundedbythestate,althoughLEAshavetheoptionofincreasingthisbandwidthattheircostcreatingequityissuesacrossthestate.
A10Mbpstelecommunicationslineisonlycapableofsupportingdigitallearninginaschoolwithlessthan100studentsaccordingtoguidelinesfromSETDA’sTheBroadbandImperative.Theguidelinesstatethatbythe2014‐2015schoolyear,schoolsshouldhaveatleast100Mbpsper1,000students/staff.Inotherwords,aschoolwith100‐1,000studentsshouldhaveaminimumof100Mbpstosupportdigitallearning.Inthe2015‐2016schoolyear,only52%ofDelawareschoolsaremeetingthe2014‐2015schoolyearguidelinesforbandwidthasdeterminedbySETDAandtheFCC.TheinvestmentrecommendedintheplanwillbringallschoolsinlinewiththeSETDA/FCCguidelines.
Inrecognitionofthegrowinguseofbroadbandthroughoutschools,SETDAandtheFCChavesetrecommendedguidelinesforthe2017‐2018
20
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
schoolyearat1Gbpsper1,000students/staff.Thismeansby2017‐2018,aschoolwith100‐1,000studentsshouldhaveaminimumof1Gbps(1,000Mbps)tosupportdigitallearning.
Recommendation2.1.1: Ensureallelementaryschoolshavesufficientresourcestosupportacapacityof100Mbpsbandwidthandallmiddleandhighschoolshavesufficientresourcesfor1Gbps(1,000Mbps)forthe2016‐2017schoolyearaswellasassociatedincreasesatthenetworkcoretosupportthebandwidthincrease.
Recommendation2.1.2: InFY18,providesufficientresourcestoincreasebandwidthinallschoolsto1Gbps(1,000Mbps)toaligntotheSETDA/FCCguidelinesforthe2017‐2018schoolyear.
Recommendation2.1.3: BeginninginFY19,DTIandDDOEwillconductanannualevaluationofbandwidthrequirementsbyschoolandbandwidthadjustedtoensurealignmentwithSETDAandFCCguidelines.
2. Ensureadequateresourcessothatinternalschoolnetworks,includingwirelessaccess,haveareplacementcycleof5–7yearsthattakesadvantageofthefundingcycleofCategory2oftheE‐ratemodernizationorder.
Rationale: TheE‐rateprovidesatremendousopportunitytoupgradetheinternaltelecommunicationsinfrastructureofDelawareschoolswiththesupportofCategory2fundsatgreatcostsavings.WithE‐rateCategory2services,eachschoolcanrequestupto$150perstudentovera5‐yearperiod.UsingE‐ratediscountdataandstudentenrollmentforthe2015‐2016schoolyear,therewere135,152studentswhichmeansourschoolscanrequestover$20million($20,272.8)inE‐rateCategory2servicesthatwillbediscountedby$14,604.5(72.04%)withthebalance,overthefive‐yearfundingcycle,of$5,668.3beingtheresponsibilityoftheschools.
AnevaluationofE‐rateapplicationsforthe2015‐2016schoolyearshowsthatonlyninedistrictsandfourchartersappliedforCategory2fundsinthefirstyearofthefive‐yearcycle.DiscussionswiththeLEAsconcerningE‐rateapplicationsforthe2016‐2017schoolyearresultedineightdistrictsandfourchartersintendingtofile.Thisgivesatotalof13districts(somedistrictsarefilinginbothyears)andeightcharterschoolsinthefirsttwoyears–lessthanhalfofourLEAs.Thereareavarietyofreasonswhylessthanhalfhaveapplied,buttimeandeffort,understandingtheprogramandprocess,recentupgrades(andrealizingthattheyhavefiveyearstoaccessE‐ratefunds),andlackoffundsfortheschoolshareheadthelist.Currently,thisentirecostfallsontheLEAseventhoughtraditionallythestatehassupportedthetelecommunicationsinfrastructure.
AdditionalsavingscouldbegeneratedbyastatewideRFPforwirelessservicesandpotentiallyDTIoverseeingthestatewidewirelessinfrastructure.Theinfrastructuresurveyasked,“WouldyourLEAconsiderparticipatinginastatewideRFPandassociatedawardwiththeintentofreducingcostsofwirelessaccessinyourschool(s)?”Eighty‐fourpercentof
21
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
therespondentssaidtheywouldconsiderparticipatinginthestatewideRFP.
Recommendation2.2.1: ProvidesufficientresourcesfromthestatetoensureallLEAsareabletotakemaximumadvantageofCategory2oftheE‐rate.
Recommendation2.2.2: ExplorethepossibilityofworkingwiththePublicServiceCommissionandtheLegislaturetoestablishaDelawareUniversalServicesFundforE‐rate,notunliketheDelawareBroadbandFund.
3. EnsurethatLEAshaveadequateresourcesandtrainedpersonneltosupportandmaintaintheirdevices,internalnetworksandbroadbandcomingintotheschools.
Rationale: Inordertosupportthistechnologycapacityinanever‐increasinglycomplexInternetandWi‐Fienvironment,LEAsneedtohavestaffmember(s)trainedtosupportthenetworksanddevices.WhenLEAswereaskedwhattheyneedwithrespecttotechnology,thesecondhighestneedselectedwas“Moretechnicalsupporttokeepcomputersandapplicationsrunning.”AccordingtotheInfrastructuresurvey,thereareapproximately150FTEsupportingover110,000instructionalcomputingdevicesplusallthenetworksinDelawareschools,aratioofapproximately733to1.Contrastthatwitharatioof150devicespertechnologysupportpersoninbusinesstoday,andourLEAsaredefinitelylackingthecapacitytofullysupportthecomputingdevicesneededfordigitallearning.
Recommendation2.3.1: Asthestateprovidesflexibilityinfundingstreams,theLEAsneedtodeterminesufficienttechnologystaffingtosupportthenetworksanddevicesintheLEA,withaninitialtargetofoneFTEper500devices.
4. Enterintopartnershipswithtelecommunicationsproviders,carriersandappropriateagenciesofthestatetoensureeverypartofthestatehassufficientbroadbandtosupportstudentsathome.
Rationale: TheNationalEducationalTechnologyPlan2016(NETP16)addressestheissueofubiquitousconnectivityforstudentsatschoolandathome.Tocreateaneffectiveanytime,anywherelearningenvironment,thereneedstobereliableconnectivity,justlikewaterandelectricity,bothinschoolandoutsideofschool.TheFederalCommunicationsCommissionhasdubbedthelackofaccessathomeasthehomeworkgap.
In2014,astudybyBroadbandNow.comandothersestimatedthat16%ofDelawareresidentsqualifiedasunderservedforbroadbandservicesbecauseeitherbroadbandservicewasnotavailableorthecostofbroadbandwasconsideredaboveareasonablemarketprice.SincethattimeDelawarehasexperiencedbroadbandexpansioninsomeareas,butobstaclestoadoption,includingcostanddigitalliteracyhaveshownnoimprovement.Thishomeworkgapdisproportionatelyimpactsrural,westernKentandSussexCountieswithsomeestimatessuggestingthatashighas40%offamilieslivingintheseareasmaynotcurrentlyhaveapathtosecurebroadbandservice.
22
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Withoutequitableaccesstobroadband,teachersarehesitanttoassignhomeworkthatmayrequireaccesstotheInternetandstudentsarenotabletoaccessthewiderangeofcontentfortheirschoolworkortocreateandsharecontentwiththeirpeersintheirLEAoracrossthestate.Stepsneedtobetakentoensureallstudentshaveaccesstotheconnectivitytheyneedtofollowtheirinterestsaswellastheirschoolwork.
Recommendation2.4.1: EncouragetheCouncilonEducationalTechnologytoformaworkinggrouptofurtherdelveintothebestpathforwardtoensurerobustbroadbandconnectivityinthecommunityandhomes.
Teaching and Learning
National Perspective Intheareaofteachingandlearning,changeshavebeendrivenbythedesireforhigherexpectationsforstudentsasevidencedbytheadoptionoftheCommonCoreStateStandardsaswellasnewapproachestomeasuringtheextenttowhichstudentsareattainingthosestandardsthroughonlineassessments.Instructionalmaterials,forsolongdominatedbytextbooks,alsoaremorphingbecauseoftechnology.Moreandmore,teachershaveaccesstoanincreasingrangeofcontenttoengageandenlightentheirstudentsbecauseofaccesstoaplethoraofinformationontheInternet.Finally,newstandardsandwaysofassessment,coupledwiththeinfluxoftechnologyarechangingthewaysstudentsandteachersinteractandhowtheyspendtheirtimetogetherandapart.
Common Core State Standards and Online Assessments InJuneof2010,theNationalGovernorsAssociationandtheCouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficersreleasedthefinalversionoftheCommonCoreStateStandards(CCSS)afteryearsofresearchandwork.BetweenFebruary2010andNovember2011,allofthestatesbutAlaska,Nebraska,TexasandVirginia(andonlyEnglishLanguageArtsinMinnesota)adoptedtheCCSS.Asaresult,virtuallyallstates,includingDelawarenowhavemorerigorousstandardsforstudentsforwhatstudentsneedtoknowandbeabletodoinpreparingALLstudentsforsuccessinbothcollegeandcareer.
TheCommonCorestandardsandtheInternationalSocietyforTechnologyinEducation(ISTE)StandardsforTeachersbothrecognizethateducationasit’salwaysbeendoneisnotenoughinthedigitalage.Theybothshareanemphasisonusingtechnology,notfortechnology’ssake,butasatoolformasteringhigher‐levelthinkingskills,focusingonresearchandmedialiteracy,creativity,collaboration,problemsolving,andcriticalthinking.
Between2001,whenVirginiabeganitsonlineassessmentprogram,and2012,33stateshadofferedsomekindofsubstantialonlinetesting,includingDelaware.Thesetestswerevirtuallyallmultiple‐choice,automatingthebubble‐inanswersheetsfromformerpaperandpenciltests.Themovetoonlineassessmentsrequiredadditionalbandwidthcapabilitiesinschoolsandcausedsomedistrictstoincreasethenumberofdevicestheyusedforassessmentorshufflecomputersnormallyusedforinstructionintoroomsthatwereusedforonlineassessmentduringtestingtime.Bythe2015‐2016schoolyear,“the
23
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
majorityofstate‐mandatedend‐of‐yearsummativetestsstudentswilltakewillbeviacomputeradministrationandnotviapaper‐and‐pencilformat.Infact,only15percentoftheover800testsbeingofferedtograde3‐8studentsthisyearwillonlybeavailableinapaper‐and‐pencilformat.”[13]
Increase and Diversity of Devices Theproliferationoftechnologyinschoolscanbeseeninheadlinesalmosteveryday:“Schooldistrictbuysacomputerforeverystudent!”Seldomdothenewsstoriesdelveintowhatstudentsandteacherswillbedoingwiththetechnology,leavingtheimpressioninthepublicthatwhatisimportantisthetechnology,nothowthetechnologywillenablelearning.Thoughtfulschooldistrictleadersknowotherwise.Theyknowthattechnologycanprovideteachersandstudentswithnotonlyavastarrayofresources,butalsotransformtheentireprocessofeducation.Butthefactremainsthathavingthedevices,bandwidthandsystemsinplaceareanecessarybutnotsufficientaspectofthetransformationofeducationtoensureitmeetstheneedsofallstudentstopreparethemtobecollegeandcareerready.
Acrossthecountrytherehasbeenasignificantincreaseinthenumberofdevicesinschools,partiallyduetotheincreasingdiversityofformfactorsofdevices.Mobilephones,tablets,Chromebooks,laptopsanddesktops:allareusedintheteachingandlearningprocesseveryday.TheincreaseinthischangeismostevidentintabletsandChromebooks.TheiPadwasintroducedin2011andcaughtfireineducationasmoreandmoreapplicationsevolvedforit.YettheemergenceoftheChromebook,introducedin2012hasbeenevenmoreremarkable.Drivenbylowprices($200‐$250),easeofuseandmaintenanceandeasyintegrationwithGooglesystems,Chromebookshavemovedfrommakinguplessthan1%ofalldevicessoldtoschooldistrictsin2012to40%ofdevicessoldtoschooldistrictsinthethirdquarterof2014and51%ofdevicessoldinthethirdquarterof2015accordingtoareportfromFuturesourceConsulting.[14]
Thegrowthofonlineassessmentisanotherfactorthathasdrivenadditionaldevicesintheclassroom.And,finally,thephasingoutofoldsystems,mostnotablyWindowsXP,alsoisdrivingtheadditionofnewerdevicesintheclassroom.WindowsXP,releasedin2001,hadbeenthedominantoperatingsystemintheworldandinU.S.classrooms.DatafromPARCCandSmarterBalancedindicatedthatWindowsXPwason56%ofthecomputersschoolsplannedtouseforthefirstiterationoftheirtestsduringthe2014‐15schoolyear.MicrosoftannounceditwouldstopsupportingWindowsXPinApril2014.ThischangefromMicrosoftcausedasurgeinthepurchaseofnewdevices.[15]
Changing Approaches to Learning Enabled by Technology Withtheincreasedavailabilityoftechnology,teachersareusingdifferentinstructionalmodelsandusinginstructionaltimedifferently.Flippedclassrooms,blendedlearningandpersonalizedlearningallarebuzzwordsinthemediaandthroughoutdistricts.Inaflippedclassroom,studentsarerotatingbetweenface‐to‐faceinteractionswithteachersandonlinedeliveryofinstructionfromaremotelocation.Blendedlearning,asdefinedbyChristensen,HornandStaker,is“aformaleducationprograminwhichastudentlearnsatleastinpartthroughonlinelearningwithsomeelementofstudentcontrolovertime,place,pathand/orpaceandatleastinpartatasupervisedbrick‐and‐mortarlocationawayfromhome.”[16]AtleastpartofthisdefinitionhasbeenpickedupintheEveryStudentSucceedsAct,theDecember2015reauthorizationoftheElementaryandSecondaryEducationAct(ESEA).Thesenewapproachesfeaturemoreactivestudentlearning,asopposedtostudents
24
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
passivelylisteningtoteachersorjustwatchingavideo.Studentsareexpectedtobepresentedwithopportunitiestodelvedeeplyintotopicsandsolverealworldproblems.
Thesenewlearningapproachesareenabledtoalargedegreebyagrowingshiftininstructionalmaterialsfromprinttowarddigital.Accordingtoa2014reportfromMDR,approximatelyhalfofbothschooldistrictcurriculumandtechnologydirectorsenvisionedasignificantshifttowarddigitalcontentinthenextthreeyears.[17]BothFloridaandNorthCarolinahaveputrequireddigitalcontentinpolicywherebyFloridahassaidthatbythe2015‐2016schoolyear,50%ofinstructionalmaterialsfundingmustbespentondigital,stateadoptedmaterials.NorthCarolinatooktheultimatestepbysayingthatbythe2017‐18schoolyear,districtsshouldpurchaseonlydigitalinstructionalmaterials.Thisshiftisnotconfinedtothemeredigitizationoftextandaccesstovariousmedia;italsoincludeshowstatesanddistrictsstoreanddistributecontent.Themostprevalentandfastestgrowingmechanismisrepositories.Morestates–anddistricts‐arecreatingrepositoriesofdigitalcontent.Atleasthalfofthestateshavesomeformofcontentrepository.[18]
Thebusinessofinstructionalmaterialsalsoischanging,toalargedegreebecauseoftechnology.Teacherswantmoreflexibilityinthetypeofcontenttheywanttouseintheclassroom,themethodandmediaofdeliveryaswellasmoreflexibilityinthesizeofcontent–smallerchunksinadditiontofullcoursecurriculum.OpenEducationalResources(OER)providebothanalternativebusinessmodelanddifferentapproachtotheuseofinstructionalmaterials.OpenEducationalResourcesarematerialsthatareinthepublicdomainorreleasedunderanintellectualpropertylicensethatpermitstheirfreeuseandrepurposingbyothers.Theyalloweasyaccess,collaborationandsharingamongeducators;theyarelowornocost;theyoftenaredigital;andtheytypicallyarelicensedsothattheycanberemixed,reused,andrepurposed.Somestates,mostnotablyNewYork,UtahandWashington,havesignificantOERinitiativesunderwaythathaveresultedinthecreationofOERcontentforstudentsandteachers(NewYorkandUtah)andanidentificationandvettingofOERandpostingoftheresults(Washington).FinallytheU.S.DepartmentofEducationlaunchedaninitiativecalledGoOpenthatencouragesdistrictstoswitchtoOERandprovidessupportthroughmentordistricts,trainingandmakingcertainlearningmanagementsystemsaremoreaccessibleforOER.
Increase in Ways to Deliver Professional Learning Opportunities Thenotionofwell‐prepared,effectiveteachershasalwaysbeenatthecoreoflearningforstudents.Withthechangeinstandards,approachestoassessment,instructionalapproachestoenablestudentstomasterthestandardsaswellastheinfluxoftechnologythroughschools,theneedforhighqualityprofessionallearninghasneverbeengreater.Accordingtothereport,Teachers’ViewsonProfessionalDevelopment,“atypicalteacherspendsabout68hourseachyearonprofessionallearningactivitiestypicallydirectedbydistricts.[19]Whenself‐guidedprofessionallearningandcoursesareincluded,theannualtotalcomesto89hours.”Teachersandadministratorsgenerallyagreeonwhatgoodprofessionallearninglookslike:relevanttotheircontext,interactive,deliveredbysomeonewhounderstandstheteachers’experiences,andsustainedovertime.Twomodelsofdeliveryofprofessionallearningthatmatchbestwiththesecharacteristicsaredigitalliteracycoachesandonlinedeliveryofprofessionallearning.
Districtsthroughoutthenationareemployingdigitalliteracycoacheseffectivelyandsomestates,includingVirginiaandPennsylvania,haveimplementedcoachesstatewide.WhenpresentedwithtwentypossibleresponsestothequestionintheProjectTomorrowsurvey,
25
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
“Whichofthesetypesofprofessionaldevelopmentformatsdoyouthinkaremosteffectivetohelpteacherslearnhowtointegratetechnologywithininstructionintheirclassroom,”‘Inschoolpeercoachingandmentoring’wasthesecondmostpopularchoicebyteachersrespondingtothesurvey.Whensupportedbyjust‐in‐timeonlinevideos,onlineWebinarsandonlinecommunitiesofpracticetoallowteacherstoshareandcollaborate,thesesystemsareevenmoreeffective.Thecoachingmodelisjustemergingfromadolescence,butthelessonslearned–well‐trainedcoachesavailablefrequentlyandaprogramthatissustainedovertime–areshowingittobehighlyeffectivewhenimplementedwithfidelity.
Delaware Perspective
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Online Assessments DelawareadoptedtheCommonCoreStateStandards(CCSS)onAugust19,2010andhasremainedwiththestandardssincethattime.DelawareGovernorJackMarkell,whoco‐chairedtheNGAatthattime,ledtheadoptionprocessforstates.
ThepushtochangeDelaware’sstandardstoensurecollegeandcareerreadyexpectationsforallwasneeded.AsaFordhaminstitutereportin2010explained,Delaware’sEnglish/LanguageArts(ELA)standardswereamongtheworstinthecountry,whiletheCCSSELAstandardsweresignificantlysuperiortowhatourstudentsneededtoknowandbeabletodo.InMathematics,Delaware’sstandardswereconsidereddecent,yettheCCSSmathstandardswerealsodeemedsuperiortoourexistingstandards.
Delawarewasdeemedasoneofthestatesthathasbeenabletoimplementthesenewcollegeandcareerstandardswell.Forexample,Delaware’sCommonGroundforCommonCore(CGCC)trainingprovidedrigorous,year‐longprofessionallearningexperienceforschool‐basedteamsofeducatorsdesignedtobringeducatorsuptospeedonwhattheCommonCorestandardsare,theimplicationsforday‐to‐dayclassroominstruction,andtheshiftsnecessarytoensuretheCommonCoreissuccessfullyrolledout.
ArecentstudyconductedbyHarvardUniversityonDelawareandfourotherstatesconcludedthatteachersinDelawarehavemademajorchangesintheirlessonplansandinstructionalmaterials.Withthisshift,teachersandprincipalshavelargelyembracedthenewstandards.Thisreportalsoshowedthatteachersreportedturningtoamultitudeofonlinesources.Forexample,morethanonethirdofourteacherssurveyed(37%)indicatedthattheyusedtheOpenEducationalResourcetoolEngageNYandalmostone‐fourthofteachersusedLearnZillionforlessonplansalignedtoCommonCore.TeachersfeltstronglythatthesesourceshadbeenvaluabletotheminaligningtheirinstructiontoCCSS.
Delawarebegantestingonlinein2010inresponsetoeducatorsdesiringmoreflexibleandbetterdatathanwaspossiblewiththepriorsystem,andthestatemadetheshifttoonlineassessmentwithunprecedentedspeed.Inthesummer2008ataskforceidentifiedtwoprioritiesforstatewidetests–efficientscoringandtrackingdataovertime.Inwinterof2010thestatebeganreadinesstrainingsandstakeholdermeetingstobroadencommunications,conductedrapidfieldtestwithmultiplechecklistsinthespring,ensurednetworkconnectivity,studentinformationmanagementsystemsandadditionalhardwarewereinplaceinthesummerandinthefallof2010beganthelaunchoftheDelawareComprehensiveAssessmentSystem(DCAS).Asresultsbegantoflowtodistrictsinthespringandsummerof2011,thestatebeganstatewideprofessionaldevelopmentonusing
26
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
datafromonlinetests.Thisrapiddevelopmentcouldnothavehappenedwithoutcommitmentfromalllevelsofstategovernmentaswellasasolidstatewidetelecommunicationsnetworkandthepupilaccountingsystemsthatalreadywereinplace.
Additionaltestswereaddedinthe2011‐12schoolyearandbythe2012‐13schoolyearallDCASassessmentswereonlinewiththeexceptionofseveralendofcourseexams.Inthe2014‐15schoolyear,DelawareimplementedtheSmarterEnglishLanguageArtsandSmarterMathematicsassessments.Thesetestsarequitedifferentfromourlegacytests.Forexample,inELAouroldassessmentreliedheavilyonmultiple‐choicequestionsmeasuringreadingcomprehension.Ournewassessmentrequiresstudentstowriteshortanswersandlongeressays.Inmathematics,ournewassessmentrequiresstudentstoshowtheirworkandtodemonstratetheirmathematicalreasoning,nottosimplypickthecorrectanswer.
Theshifttothesenewassessmentshasreducedstatetestingtimebetween35‐45%pergradeleveltested.
Increase and Diversity of Devices Whiledefinitionsofdevicesandvarioustechnologieshavechangedovertimeasthetechnologiesthemselveshavechanged,forthepurposesofthisplan,afullyfunctioningdeviceisonewherestudentscaninputandcreatecontent,consumecontentbyreading,listeningandviewing,anddistributecontenttopeoplearoundtheworld.Thisincludesdesktopandlaptopcomputers,Chromebooksandtablets.ItdoesnotincludeeReaders,portablemediadevicesormobiledevicessuchassmartphones,althoughmanywouldarguethatasmartphoneshouldbeincluded.
TheidealandmosteffectiveandefficientscenarioforDelawarestudentsisforeverystudenttohaveafullyfunctioningdeviceatschoolandathome,arobustconnectiontotheInternet,anddevicesandconnectionsthatworkallthetime.Whilethisscenariomayseemloftyanddifficulttoreachineducation,itisthenormforvirtuallyeverybusinessinthestate.Itisnottoomuchtoexpectthatinthemiddleoftheseconddecadeofthe21stcentury,studentsandteachershavethesamefundamentaltoolstoensureDelawarestudentsarereadyfortheworkforceandtobefullyfunctioningcitizensofthestateandthenation.
Sincethe2003‐2005DCETStrategicPlan,therehavebeensignificantchangesintechnologyinDelaware’sschools.Thestatebegananannualschooltechnologysurveyinthefall2000.Inthe2000survey,therewere30,545instructionalcomputersand1,763administrativecomputers.Inreviewingthesurveysbetween2007andthecurrentsurvey,anumberoffactsstandout.
Types of Computing Devices Surveyed Thesurveyhasshiftedwhatithasaskedforbaseduponchangesinthetechnologyusedinschools.The2007and2008surveysfirstaskedformultimediacomputersinadditiontoMacs,Maclaptops,PCsandPClaptops,indicatingrecognitionoftheshiftinpoweranduseofthedevices.Asthestategearedupforonlineassessments,thefocusinthe2009and2010surveyswasoncomputersthatmettheDelawareComprehensiveAssessmentSystem’srecommendedspecifications.In2011,thesurveybegancollecting“OtherInternetAccessDevices,”includingAndroidtablet,iPad,Windowstablet,Mobiledevice,Portablemediaplayer,eBookandOther,reflectingthenewtechnologiesbeingintroducedtothemarket.Finally,the2015surveyincludedChromebooksinresponsetotheincreaseintheOthercategoryaswellastheskyrocketinggrowthofmarketsharesalesofChromebooks.
27
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Number of Computing Devices The2015‐2016AnnualDelawareSchoolTechnologySurvey(AppendixD)showsapproximately110,700devicesforinstructioninDelawareschoolsmatchingthedefinitionoffullyfunctioningdevices,aswellas,over8,300administrativecomputersandtablets.Approximately34,500ofthesedevicesareincomputerlabsorlibrarymediacenters.Withapproximately135,000Delawarestudents,thestateisnotnearonestudentperdeviceandwith34,500ofthedevicesincomputerlabsorLibrary/MediaCenters,andothersoncarts,itisreasonabletoassumeonlyasmallpercentageofthemaregoinghomewithstudents.Thescenariootherbusinessesoperatewith‐eachemployeeshasatleastonewell‐supportedcomputingdeviceconnectedtotheInternet‐isfarfromrealityforDelawarestudents.
Chart1.TrendsinComputingDevicesforInstruction.
Theexplosivegrowthoftabletsoverthepasttwoyearscoupledwiththeincreaseinlaptopstowheretheyhavesurpassedthenumberofdesktops,showsastronginterestinmobiledevicesallowinguseofthedevicesanywhereoncampus.Thisflexibility,however,iscompletelydependentuponarobustwirelessnetworkevenlydistributedthroughoutthecampus.
AsforstudentshavingaccesstoadeviceandtheInternetathome,therearenodatatotellspecificallywhetherornotthatisthecase.In2014,astudybyBroadbandNow.comandothersestimatedthat16%ofDelawareresidentsqualifiedasunderservedforbroadbandservicesbecauseeitherbroadbandservicewasnotavailableorthecostofbroadbandwasconsideredaboveareasonablemarketprice.Thishomeworkgapdisproportionatelyimpactsrural,westernKentandSussexCountieswithsomeestimatessuggestingthatashighas40%offamilieslivingintheseareasmaynotcurrentlyhaveapathtosecurebroadbandservice.
Thehomeworkgapisasubstantialbarriertotheequitableaccesstolearningthatallstudentsshouldhave.Thegapalsocannegativelyaffectteachers’willingnesstomake
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TrendsinComputingDevices
Desktops Laptops Tablets TotalDevices
28
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
homeworkassignmentsthatmaybemoreengagingandmorechallengingbecausetheyinvolveaccessingresourcesontheInternet.
TheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformationandtheDepartmentofEducationareexaminingotheropportunitiesforpartnershipinservingDelaware’sstudentssuchasprovidinglow‐costhigh‐speedInternetservicetofamilieslessabletoafforditthroughserviceproviderprogramsandworkingtoprovidehigh‐volumepurchasingopportunitiestoschooldistricts.Inaddition,theFederalCommunicationsCommission(FCC)isexpectedtooverhaultheLifelineprograminearly2016,tohelpmakebroadbandInternetaffordableforlow‐incomefamilies.TheFCCmoveseekstoensureallstudentshaveaccesstotheInternet,helpingtobridgethedigitaldivide.
Other Technologies Alsotellinginareviewofpastsurveysisthetypesofdevices,otherthancomputingdevicesthatareusedintheclassroom.In2007,thesurveycollecteddataonothertechnologiesthatwereusedintheclassroom,includingthenumberofdigitalcameras,PersonalDigitalAssistants(PDAs),printersandcomputerprojectiondevicesaswellasservers.Overtimetheinventoryofsometechnologies,suchasprinters,hasremainedrelativelyconstantwithaboutoneprinterperclassroom.Asthecostofprojectiondevices(documentcamerasandprojectorsconnectedtoacomputer)fell,thenumberinclassroomshasgrownbymorethanathousandayeartowherethereistheequivalentofoneprojectiondeviceperclassroom.Thesameistrueofinteractivewhiteboards,someofwhichhavebuiltinprojectionsystems.AsLEAshavepurchasedmoreandmorelaptopsandtabletsthatareeasilyportable,therehasbeenconcomitantgrowthinwirelessaccesspoints.Otherclassroomtechnologiessuchasresponsesystems,orclickers,thatallowimmediatepersonalizedresponsesfromstudentstoquestionsfromteachers,seemtohaveleveledoff,ascomputingdevicescanbeusedforasimilarfunction.
Another–andmoreimportant–perspectiveondevicesintheclassroomcanbegleanedfromtheteacher’sperspectivesasshownontheTeachersurvey.Themajorityofteachersareinclassroomsthatarenotreallyreadyforfulltechnologyintegration,definedas“atleastonecomputerforeverythreestudentsandaSMARTBoardorothercomputer‐relatedlearningdevice.”
Itisnotthatteachersdon’twanttechnology.Whengivenfourstatementsandaskedtopicktheonethatbestappliestotheircurrentthinking,itisclearthatteacherswantmoretechnology.
Table3.PercentofTeachersRespondingtoStatementthatBestAppliestoCurrentThinking
CurrentThinking PercentIwishwehadmoretechnologyinmyclassroom/ourclassrooms 69.41%Iwishwehadlesstechnologyinmyclassroom/ourclassrooms 1.22%Mystudents/ourstudentswantmoretechnologyintheclassroombutIdonot 2.06%Theleveloftechnologythatwehavenowisjustfine 27.31%
Andteachershaveasked:54percentofteachershaveaskedformoretechnologyresourcesfortheirclassrooms.Whenaskediftheycouldreceiveanytechnologyfortheirclassroom,
29
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
overathirdwishedforiPadsortabletsforeachchildandoverathirdwishedforacomputerorlaptopforeachchild.Interactivewhiteboards,interactivetablesandprojectorswerefardownthelist.Nearlythreequartersofrespondentssaidtheyfeltrestrictedwithtryingtoutilizetechnologybecauseoflackofresources.Byfartheprimaryreasonwasalimitednumberofdevices.Thenexttworeasonswerethattheirhardwarewasnotfunctioningandlackofbandwidth.Teacherswereaskedtheopen‐endedquestion,“Ineed…”Thesecondhighestresponseonthe“Ineed”listwas“moreaccesstotechnologytoolstointegrateinmyclassroominstruction.”Clearlyteacherswantandneedmoredevices,andtheyneedtobecomfortablethatthedevicesworkedintheclassroomandthattheycangettotheInternettousetheresourcestheyneed.
Changing Approaches to Instruction Enabled by Technology Delawarehasengagedinactionresearchoneffectivewaystointegratetechnologyintoinstructionandcreatinganddisseminatingbestpracticesforchangingapproachestoinstructionenabledbytechnology.Forthe2013‐2014schoolyear,theBRINC(Brandywine,IndianRiver,NewCastleCountyVo‐TechandColonial)Consortiumreceiveda$600,000SIIP(SpecificandInnovativeImprovementPractices)grantfromtheDelawareDepartmentofEducationforLinkingtotheFuturethatsupportedpersonalizedlearningopportunitiesforstudentsatall10highschoolsinthosedistricts.BRINCenvisionsthatstudentswillbeabletocomparedataabouttheirprogressagainsttheirlearninggoals,beexposedtonewblendedlearningstrategiesforanywhere,anytimelearningandhavemoreoptionsfornon‐traditionallearning,suchasonlinecourses.[20]
ThedistrictsinBRINCshareadeepcommitmenttoacceleratingstudentachievement,deepeningstudentlearning,andincreasingstudentequitythroughacoordinatedapproach.TheConsortium’sgoalistoensurethateverystudentineveryBRINCdistrictgraduatescollege‐andcareer‐readybycreatingandsupportingnewpersonalizedlearningenvironments.BRINC’sambitiousplantoprovidepersonalizedlearningopportunitiesforeachstudentisdrivenbyasharedvisionforafuturewhereteachingandlearningareresponsivetostudentneedsandsupportedbyappropriateresources.
InNovember2015,theBRINCConsortiumwasfeaturedontheU.S.DepartmentofEducationblogthathighlightsinnovativeideas,promisingpractices,lessonslearnedandresourcesinformedbytheimplementationofK‐12reformstoimproveeducationforallstudents.Theblogpost,Delaware’sBRINCDistrictsCollaboratetoPersonalizeLearningforAllStudents,celebratestheworkoftheBRINCdistrictsandespeciallytheireffortsatcollaboration.[21]
ThevastmajorityofteachersrespondingtotheTeachersurveyareexperienceduserswith94%ratingthemselvesintermediateorexperiencedcomputerusersandtheyusecomputers,outsideofinstruction,firstandforemosttoaccesstheInternetandwordprocessingthentocreateinstructionalmaterialsandcommunicatewithparents.Toenhancetheirteachingefforts,theyrelymostononlinevideocontentandonlineimages,aswellastheInternetfordevelopinglessonplansandmanagementprogramsforstudentdata.
Delawareteachersseemtohaveverypositiveattitudesaboutthebenefitsoftechnologyintheclassroom.Theprimarybenefitoftechnologythatteachershaveseenintheirclassroomismotivationwith‘beingabletoreinforceandexpandoncontenttaught’withthe‘abilitytorespondtoavarietyoflearningstyles’closebehind.WhengivenchoicesaboutwhathappenswhentheyusetheInternet,teachersselected“Studentsaremoremotivated”most
30
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
often,followedby“Studentscreateproductsthatshowhigherlevelsoflearning.”Whengivenalistofstatementsthatwerebothpositiveandnegativeabouttechnology,thetwomostselectedstatementswere“Thetechnologytodayallowsteacherstodomuchmorethaneverbefore,”and“Technologyisanewandexcitingwayofcommunicatingwithandmotivatingstudents.”Thetwoleastselectedoptionswerenegative:“Technologyismoreofadistractionthanateachingasset,”and“Technologyrequirestoomuchplanning/maintenance.”
Intheclassroomwithstudents,approximatelytwo‐thirdsofteacherssurveyedsaidtheyintegratetechnologyintotheirlessonsmultipletimesaweek.However,thevastnumberofusestendstofocusonwaysthatkeeptheteacherasthefocusofthelearningasopposedtoempoweringthestudents.Thisisillustratedbytheresponsestothequestion,“Pleaserateeachofthefollowingtechnologiesbasedonyourunderstandingofeachtoenhancelearning.”Interactivewhiteboardsandpersonalcomputersorlaptopswerevirtuallytiedforthetopspotfollowedbyprojectorstodisplayorshowmediafromwebsitesorabrowser.Bothprojectorsandinteractivewhiteboardsareprimarilyusedwiththeteacherincharge.Whenaskedhowoftentheyusethesetechnologies,forthosetechnologiesusedeveryday,theinteractivewhiteboardwasthemostused,followedbyprojectorsandthenpersonalcomputersandlaptops.Twoofthethreetechnologiesthattheso‐called‘power‐users’areusingaretypicallycontrolledbyteachers,notstudents.
OveralltheprofileofDelawareteachersisthatthemajorityisexperiencedwithtechnologyfortheirownuse,haveapositiveattitudeaboutthebenefitsoftechnologyforstudents,andareusingtechnologyoutsideoftheclassroomtohelpthemintheirjobsandintheclassroomwithstudents,albeitprimarilyinawaytopresentinformationtostudents.
Asnotedinthenationalsection,shiftingtheemphasisofinstructionalmaterialsfromprinttowarddigitalsubstantiallyenhanceseffortstointegratetechnologythroughoutinstruction.TheshifttodigitalinstructionalmaterialsinDelawarecurrentlyisfocusedonrepositories.TheDDOEintendstousetheSchoologyLearningManagementSystem(LMS)toprovideastatewiderepositoryofinstructionalresources.ThestatecontractedwithSchoologyin2015todeliverprofessionaldevelopmentthroughtheeLearningDelawareprogram.Inaddition,districtsandchartershavetheopportunitytousetheSchoologyLMSwiththeirK‐12studentsatminimalcost.WithinSchoology,theResourcessectionwillbeusedtoshareinstructionalcontent.TheDDOEandLEAsareworkingwithSchoologytoenhancetheResourcessectiontoprovidebettertaggingandsearchingcapabilities.Currently,CommonCoreresourcesarebeingdevelopedandsharedwiththeCommonGroundforCommonCoregroupinSchoologywiththeintentofexpandingtheaudienceinthenearfuture.
InDecember2015,DelawarejoinedTheK‐12OERCollaborative,aninitiativeledbyagroupof11stateswiththegoalofcreatingcomprehensive,high‐qualityopeneducationalresources(OER)supportingK‐12mathematicsandEnglishlanguageartsthatarealignedwithstatelearningstandards.ThestatesthathavesignedontothecollaborativeareDelaware,California,Georgia,Hawaii,Idaho,Minnesota,NorthCarolina,Oregon,Utah,WashingtonandWisconsin.Anumberoforganizationshave“signedon”tothecollaborativeaswell.TheK‐12OERCollaborativehasgonethroughanRFPprocessforprototypelessonsfrompublishersandhasstartedworkonmaterialsformiddleschoolmath,withIllustrativeMathematicsasthedeveloper.TheCollaborativehassecuredsufficientfundingtodevelopOERmaterialsforgrades6‐8mathand6‐8English/languageartsbythe2017‐18school
31
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
year.Delawareishopingtoparticipateina6thgrademathpilotduringthe2016‐2017schoolyear.[22]
Opportunities in Teacher Preparation and Professional Learning Teacherpreparationprogramshaveresponsibilitytoprepareteachersinawiderangeofareasinashortperiodoftime.Astechnologicalchangehasflowedthroughsocietyand,asnoted,lessrapidlythroughPre‐K–12education,teachingaboutthepurposefulintegrationoftechnologythroughoutteachingandlearninghasbeenslowtopermeateteacherpreparationprograms.Inaddition,asTable4showsbelow,manyDelawareteachershavebeenintheclassroomforanumberofyears.
Table4.YearsintheTeachingProfession
YearsTeaching PercentofTeachers1–5 19.69%6–10 20,50%11–15 21.24%16–20 16.45%21ormore 22.64%
GiventhedemographicdescribedinTable4,itisnotsurprisingthenegativeresponsetothequestion,“Towhatextenthaseachofthefollowingpreparedyoutomakeeffectiveuseofeducationaltechnologyforinstruction?”Manyteacherswereinteacherpreparationprogramswhenintegrationoftechnologywasinitsinfantstage.
Table5.PreparationforEffectiveUseofTechnologyforInstruction
PreparationArea NotApplicable
NotatAll
MinorExtent
ModerateExtent
MajorExtent
Undergraduateteachereducationprogram
31.75% 27.89% 24.68% 11.17% 4.50%
Graduateteachereducationprogram
32.80% 16.00% 22.99% 16.80% 11.41%
Professionaldevelopmentactivities
5.91% 8.23% 37.30% 34.59% 14.06%
Trainingprovidedbystaffresponsiblefortechnologysupportand/orintegrationatyourschool
8.51% 12.20% 36.44% 30.58% 12.28%
Independentlearning 2.40% 2.16% 18.45% 33.63% 43.37%
In2014,Delawarestrengthenedteacherpreparationbyraisingthestandardsforentryintotheteachingprofession.Morespecifically,allDelawareteacherpreparationprogramshavetosethighadmissionandcompletionrequirements,toprovidehigh‐qualitystudentteachingexperiencesandongoingevaluationofprogramparticipants,andtoprepareprospectiveelementaryschoolteachersinage‐appropriateliteracyandmathematics
32
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
instruction.WiththerecentadoptionoftheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)[23]forallDelawareeducatorsthatincludestheISTEStandardsforTeachers,[24]thereispolicyinplacetoensureteachersexitingteacherpreparationprogramsinDelawarewillbemorereadytointegratetechnologyintoteachingandlearning.
Yetwithquicklychangingtechnology,newinstructionalapproachesduetomorerigorousstandards,andinspiteofoftenintegratingthetechnologyintheclassroom,manyteachersrespondingtothesurveyadministeredinlatefall2015feelill‐preparedtouseiteffectivelyandarecravingprofessionallearningtohelpthem.However,theprofessionallearningneedstobedeliveredinwaysthatareeffectiveandconvenientforthem.Theteachersurveyaskedrespondents,“Estimatehowmanyhoursoftechnologyprofessionaldevelopmentyouhavereceivedwithinthepasttwoyears?”Theanswersarestunninglylow.
Table6.TechnologyProfessionalDevelopmentinLastTwoYearsPDHours Percent0‐4hours 46.67%5‐10hours 29.01%11‐20hours 10.40%Morethan20hours 13.92%
Thetrainingtheyhavereceivedhasbeenthemostbasic.Whilethemostfrequentresponsetowhatkindofprofessionallearningtheyhadreceivedwas“integrationoftechnology”andsecondwas“softwareapplications,”thethirdmostfrequentresponsefromnearlyhalfoftherespondentswas“Basiccomputeruse.”Inlastplacewas“Blended‘Personalized’Learning,”themostsophisticateduseoftechnology,butonlyone‐fifthofteachersselectedthatresponse.
Whenaskedtochoosethetwobestwaystheylearnhowtousetechnology,nearlythree‐fourthsofteachersselected“Smallgroup/one‐on‐oneprofessionaldevelopmentactivities.”Thenexttwomostpopularoptionschosenwere“Colleagues”and“Independently.”Onequarterofteachersstronglydisagreedordisagreedwiththestatementthatthetechnologyprofessionaldevelopmenttheyhadreceivedinthelast12monthsmettheirgoalsandneeds.Inthepreviouslycited“Ineed”question,“Moreoptionsforprofessionaldevelopmentintheareasoftechnology”receivedthehighestaverageresponse.Anditisnowonder.Whenasked,“Towhatextenthaseachofthefollowingpreparedyoutomakeeffectiveuseofeducationaltechnologyforinstruction,”thelowestrankeditemwas“Undergraduateteachereducationprogram”andthehighestbyfarwas“Independentlearning.”
Asnotedinthenationalsection,thetwomosteffectivewaystodeliverthetypeofprofessionallearningthatmatchestheresearch‐basedcharacteristicsofhigh‐qualityprofessionallearningaredigitalliteracycoachesandonlineprofessionallearning.
WhilesomeLEAsinDelawarehavehadsomeexperiencewithdigitalliteracycoaches,therehastodatenotbeenamajoremphasisonthismodel.However,thestatehassubstantialexperiencewithonlineprofessionallearning.eLearningDelaware(eLDE)offersavarietyofeducatorchoiceandmandatorytrainingsdeliveredviatheSchoologyLearning
33
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
ManagementSystem.TheeLDEfacilitator‐lededucatorchoicecoursesareofferedduringfour,seven‐weeksessions(fall,winter,spring,andsummer)with4‐6weeksofcontent.Thecoursesareentirelyonlinebutduringeachweek,therearespecificactivitiesandadiscussion.Uponsuccessfulcompletionofacourse,participantsreceiveacertificateforclockhoursearnedthatcanbeappliedtowardthe90‐hourre‐licensurerequirement.Duringthe2015‐2016schoolyear,eLDEexpandedbeyondtraditionalonlinecoursestoincludeself‐paced,ondemandmodulesrelatedtoCommonCore.
TheeLearningDelawareplatformisalsousedtodeliveravarietyofmandatorytraining,suchasChildAbuseandSchoolBullyingtotheDelawareeducationalcommunity.Mandatorytrainingisself‐pacedandsuccessfulcompletionofaquizorassuranceisrequiredforawardingofcredit.
InadditiontotheeLearningDelawarestatelevelprofessionaldevelopmentsystem,theSchoologyLMSisbeingusedduringthe2015‐2016schoolyearby24LEAscovering121schoolswithalmost80,000studentstodeliveronlinecontenttoK‐12students.TheSchoologyLMSallowseducatorstodeliverblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstruction.Thenumberofparticipatingschoolandstudentsisexpectedtogrowfor2016‐2017.
Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Teaching and Learning
Goal 3 – Computing Devices Bythe2019‐2020schoolyear,allstudentswillhaveaccesstoacomputingdeviceatschoolandathome,toenhancelearningandprovidethemwithtechnologyskillsandsavvy.
Strategies 1. Negotiateastatecontractwithvolumepurchasingpowerformultipletypesofdevices
thatdistrictscanaccess.Thecontractshouldincludeoptionsforprofessionallearning,technologysupport,andprovisionsforfullaccessibilityforthebenefitofallstudentsandeducatorswithdisabilities.
Rationale: Thestatecouldusevolumepurchasingtoprovideleverageforlowerpricesandmakethosepricesavailabletoschooldistricts.Becausealldistrictsneedprofessionallearningandtechnologysupport,buildingthoseoptionsintoastatecontractalsomayprovidecapabilitiesthatdistrictsmaynotbeabletogetontheirown,andmostprobablynotatthepricethestatecouldnegotiate.
Recommendation3.1.1: FormanRFPcommitteeconsistingofrepresentativesfromDTI,DDOEandtheLEAstodeterminethecriteriaforanRFPandissueanRFPthatwillbeawardedbyspring2017.
Goal 4 – Teacher Preparation By2020,allstudentsgraduatingteacherpreparationprogramsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinusingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheISTEStandardsforTeachers.
34
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Strategies 1. Ensureteacherpreparationprogramspreparestudentsenteringtheteaching
professionwiththenecessaryskillstoeffectivelyintegratetechnologyintostudents’learningexperiencesandofferadvanceddegrees/certificatesforpracticingteachers.
Rationale: In2014,thestatestrengthenedteacherpreparationbyraisingthestandardsforentryintotheteachingprofession.Morespecifically,allDelawareteacherpreparationprogramshavetosethighadmissionandcompletionrequirements,toprovidehigh‐qualitystudentteachingexperiencesandongoingevaluationofprogramparticipants,andtoprepareprospectiveelementaryschoolteachersinage‐appropriateliteracyandmathematicsinstruction.WiththerecentadoptionoftheISTEStandardsforTeachersandtheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)forallDelawareeducators,thereisaneedtoprovideinstructionalandtechnologysupportforthosenewteachersenteringthefield.Evidenceofthislackofpreparednessonintegratingtechnologyintolearningcomesfromtheteachersurvey.Onesurveyquestionasked,“Towhatextenthaseachofthefollowingpreparedyoutomakeeffectiveuseofeducationaltechnologyforinstruction?”Undergraduateteachereducationprogramhadthelowestoverallscoreamongthefouroptionswith29%sayingitpreparedthem“Notatall.”Only4.5percentsaiditpreparedthemtoa“majorextent.”Thesecondlowestscorewasfor“Graduateteachereducation.”WithoverhalfoftheteachersrespondinghavinggraduatedfromaninstitutionfromwithinDelaware,increasingthefocusonteachingwithtechnologycouldhaveasignificantpositiveimpactonfutureteachersinDelaware.
Recommendation4.1.1: TheDelawareProfessionalStandardsBoardintandemwiththeStateBoardofEducationshouldconsideradoptingeitheracreditminimumorcompetencybasedrequirementaroundtheintegrationoftechnologyintolearningforteachercandidatesseekinganinitiallicense.
Recommendation4.1.2: TeacherPreparationprogramsshouldbeencouragedtoofferadvanceddegreesorcertificatesonteachingandlearningwithtechnologyandblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstructionforpracticingeducators.
Goal 5 – Professional Learning PracticingeducatorsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinintegratingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)andtheISTEStandardsforTeachersandconsistentwithPSBRegulations1598and1599andfollowing.
Strategies 1. AdoptandimplementtheInternationalSocietyforTechnologyinEducation(ISTE)
standardsforstudentsandcoaches.
Rationale: In2014,theDelawareProfessionalStandardsBoardandtheStateBoardofEducationadoptedtheISTEStandardsforTeachersandtheISTEStandardsforAdministrators.Tostrengthentheintegrationoftechnology
35
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
intoteachingandlearning,theISTEstandardsshouldextendtostudentsandcoaches.
Recommendation5.1.1: TheDelawareProfessionalStandardsBoardandtheStateBoardofEducationshouldexpandRegulation1599beyondstandardsforteachersandadministratorsbyadoptingtheISTEStandardsforStudentsandISTEStandardsforCoaches.
2. EstablishanLEADigitalLearningCoachpositiontosupporteducatorsineffectivelyimplementingdigitallearningtofulfilltheISTEstandards.
Rationale: TheTeachersurveyhasnumerousquestionsrelatedtoteachers’needsforprofessionallearning.Forexample,66%ofteacherssaidtheyintegratetechnologyintostudentlearning“multipletimesperweek,”13%saidtheyintegratetechnology“onceaweek,”andtheremaining21%integratedtechnologyafewtimesamonthorless.Whenaskedhowmanyhoursoftechnologyprofessionaldevelopmenttheyhadreceivedwithinthepasttwoyears,nearlyhalf(47%)said0‐4hoursand29%said5‐10hours.Whengivenachoiceoftenpossibleresponsestotheprompt,“Ineed…”thetopresponsewas“Moreoptionsforprofessionaldevelopmentintheareasoftechnology.”Finally,whenasked,“Whataretwowaysyoulearnbestonhowtousetechnology,”theresponse‘Smallgroup/one‐on‐oneProfessionalDevelopmentActivities’wasbyfarthetopchoicewith73.15percent,followedby‘Colleagues’with47.60percent.BoththeseapproachesarefullycompatiblewithcoachingasafavoredapproachtoprofessionallearningandtheneedtoeffectivelyimplementtheISTEstandards..
Recommendation5.2.1: EnsureLEAshavesufficientresourcestosupportaminimumofonedigitallearningcoachperLEAandforlargerLEAs,sufficientdigitallearningcoachestoaddresstheneedsandvisionoftheLEA.
3. Provideonlinepersonalizedprofessionallearning,research,andcollaborationopportunitiesforeducatorsthataretiedtopracticeandalignedtoISTEstandardsthroughanonlinevirtualnetwork.
Rationale: Investmentintechnologyismorethandevicesandbandwidth;italsoisprofessionallearningandchangemanagement.Puttogetheritisasubstantialinvestmentofmoneyandtimeandpossiblyopportunitycost.Havingtheflexibilitytoworkindependentlyonlinefitsmanyteachers’preferencesforhowtheyworkinpreparingforclassaswellasintheirpersonaluseofacomputer.ResearchfromTexasGateway,anonlineprofessionallearningcommunityestablishedandmaintainedbytheTexasEducationAgency(StateDepartmentofEducation),hasshownthathavingsmall“chunks”ofprofessionallearning,aswellaslargermodulesandcourses,increasedthenumberofvisitstoTexasGatewaybythree‐fold.[25]Inaddition,highlightingevidence‐basedpracticesinallaspectsoftechnologyintegrationforDelawareteacherswouldenhancecollaborationamongeducatorsaroundthestateultimatelybenefitingstudentlearning.
36
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
However,researchinavacuumisoflittleornovalue.Fulldisseminationviaexistingorganizations,suchastheTeachingandLearningCadre,DigitalLearningCadre,InstructionalTechnologyUsersGroup–Delaware,TechMACC(TechnologyManagersandComputerCoordinators),andSchoologyChampionsCadre,notonlywillspreadthewordofsuccessfulpractices,italsowillstrengthenandaddvaluetoexistingorganizations.TheBRINCconsortiumalreadyismodelingtheuseoftechnology,andwouldserveasaninitialmodeloftheeffort.
Recommendation5.3.1: Provideonlinepersonalizedprofessionallearning,research,andcollaborationopportunitiesforeducatorsthataretiedtopracticeandalignedtoISTEstandardsthroughanonlinevirtualnetwork.
4. Establishandmaintaina“LeadingintheDigitalAge”on‐going,sustained,professionallearningprogramforteacherleaders,principals,superintendents,andothereducationleaders.
Rationale: Professionallearningforalleducatorsisnolongeraluxurybutratheranecessitytoensurethateducatorscontinuetostrengthentheirpracticethroughouttheircareer.Astheinstructionalleaderoftheschool,theprincipalneedstobeawareofpoliciesandpracticesthatenableeffectiveinstruction,andinthe21stcentury,technologyplaysakeyroleineffectiveinstruction.Therefore,principalsandotherleadersthroughouttheLEA,needtobeawareofthelatesttechnologiesavailableforinstructionandwaystheycanbeusedeffectivelyandefficientlybyteachersandstudents,andleadersneedtoknowhowtohelpteachersusethesetools.Leadershiphastheresponsibilitytoensurethateducatorswithintheirschoolsengageincontinuousprofessionallearningandapplythatlearningtoincreasestudentachievement.Byadvocatingforprofessionallearningthatmeetstheneedsoftheteacherswheretheyare,Delawarecandoitspartinensuringasuccessfuleducationexperienceforeverychildinthestate.
Recommendation5.4.1: Establishandmaintaina“LeadingintheDigitalAge”on‐going,sustained,professionallearningprogramforteacherleaders,principals,superintendents,andothereducationleaders.
Goal 6 – Blended Learning to Personalize Instruction Studentsandeducatorswillhaveaccesstoastatewideonlinevirtualnetworkthatwillincludedigitalresourcesanddataanalysiscapabilitiestodeliverblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstructionforstudents.
Strategies 1. ProvideLEAswiththeopportunitytopurchaselicensesatalowcostforastatewide
learningmanagementsystemforusewithK‐12studentsthatisintegratedwiththestatewidepupilaccountingsystem.
Rationale: TheSchoologyLearningManagementSystemisbeingusedinthe2015‐2016schoolyearby24LEAsin121schoolswithapproximately80,000studentstodeliverblendedlearningopportunitiestoK‐12students.These
37
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
numbersareexpectedtoincreaseduringthenexttwoschoolyearsto110,000students.TheDDOEandLEAshaveacostsharefortheSchoologyaccountswherethestatepays$1.83perstudentaccountandtheLEAspay$1.50.Withthepurchaseofstudentaccounts,alleducatoraccountsareatnoadditionalcost.TheFY17budgetrequestof$48,000($48.0)is$30,000($30.0)tocovertheincreaseinactualcostsincurredinFY16for80,000studentaccountsand$18,000($18.0)fortheexpectedincreaseto110,000studentsoverthenexttwoyears.TheGovernor’sRecommendedBudgetincludesthe$30,000($30.0)formaintainingthecurrentuse,butnotthe$18,000($18.0)formorestudents.Inaddition,wehaveaone‐timeopportunityinJune2016todecreasetheperstudentcostfrom$3.33to$3.00ifwereach100,000students.Withoutthefundingfortheincreaseinstudentparticipation,wewillneedtomaintainthe80,000studentaccountsandlosetheopportunitytoreduceourperstudentcost.
Recommendation6.1.1: Maintainastatewidecontractforalearningmanagementsystemandensureaperstudentcost‐sharebetweentheDepartmentofEducationandtheLEAs.
2. Establisharepositoryaspartofthestatewideonlinevirtualnetworkwithprocessestodevelop,manageandassessinstructionalresources,includingOpenEducationalResourcesandexpandcurrentinitiativestoincludecurriculumsubscriptions.
Rationale: Inordertopersonalizelearningforstudents,teachersneedaccesstoavarietyofinstructionalresources.The“onesizefitsall”approachofthepastfocusedonthesametextbookasthesinglesourceofcontentforallstudentsinaclassisinappropriateatatimewhenweareabletoknowmoreabouthowtoday’sdigitalnativeslearnbest.Havingtheinstructionalresourceslinkedtostatestandardsandbeingabletotrackhowthoseresourcesareusedcanprovidediagnosticfeedbackforteacherswhichwouldundoubtedlyimpactstudentachievement.
NewmodelsfortheacquisitionanduseofinstructionalmaterialssuchasOpenEducationalResourcesandstatewidesubscriptionstoonlineservicesforcontentalsocansaveLEAsmoneythatcanbeusedforprofessionallearning,devices,bandwidth,ortechnologysupport.
Recommendation6.2.1: Provideresourcesandpersonnelsufficienttobuildandsupportastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources.
3. Provideresourcesandprofessionallearningsothatbythe2019‐2020schoolyear,themajorityofresourcesusedinDelawaregrades3–12classroomsaredigitalandareaccessibleforallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilitieswhomayuseassistivetechnologiestoaccesstheirlearningmaterials.
Rationale: Asthestatemovescloserandclosertothegoalofeverystudenthavingadeviceforlearningtouseinschoolandoutofschool,itbecomesmoreimportantforstudentstohaveeasyaccesstoavarietyofinstructionalresourcesforlearningasthesematerialsshiftfromprinttowarddigital.Inaddition,studentswillbeusingvariousdigitalresourcestocreatecontentinsolvingrealworldproblemsdemonstratinghigherorderthinkingskills.Forsometeachers,usingprimarilydigitalresourceswillrequireprofessionallearningoneverythingfrommanagingtheresourcesamong
38
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
studentstocopyrightlawstonewinstructionalapproachesthatprovideaccesstolearningforallstudents.Inresponsetothepromptfromtheteachersurvey,“Ithink…”thehighestaverageresponsewas“TechnologyhaschangedthewayIteach,”butthethirdhighestresponsewas“Schoolsystemsexpectustolearnnewtechnologieswithoutformaltraining.”Bynotaddressingthisneed,theoutcomewillresultintheuneven,ineffectiveandinefficientintegrationoftechnologyinteachingandlearningultimatelyimpactingstudentachievement.
Recommendation6.3.1: ConductadetailedanalysisofDelawarecode,regulations,andpoliciestoensuretherearenobarrierstopurchasingdigitalresourceswithexistingfundingstreamsfortextbooksandinstructionalmaterials.
Recommendation6.3.2: Providesufficientresourcesandprofessionallearningsothatbythe2019‐2020schoolyear,themajorityofresourcesprocuredandusedinDelawaregrades3–12classroomsaredigitalandfullyaccessible.
Assistive Technology
National Perspective
Use of Technology for Students with Disabilities AccordingtotheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct(IDEA)section602,assistivetechnologyis“anyitem,pieceofequipment,orproductsystem,whetheracquiredcommerciallyofftheshelf,modified,orcustomized,thatisusedtoincrease,maintain,orimprovefunctionalcapabilitiesofachildwithadisability.”Sec300.6statesthatassistivetechnologyservicesare“anyservicethatdirectlyassistsachildwithadisabilityintheselection,acquisition,oruseofanassistivetechnologydevice.”Thisincludesevaluatingachild’sneeds,acquiringadevice,andprovidingongoingpersonalizationofthedeviceforthechild’sneeds,coordinatinguseofthedeviceacrossthechild’sschoolday,andtrainingprofessionalsandfamilymemberstousethedevice.[26]
Simplyspeaking,assistivetechnology(AT)isanythingthatenablesanindividualwithadisabilitytoaccomplishsomethingthatwouldbeimpossible—ormoreeffortful,lessefficientoroflowerquality—withoutthesupportfromthetechnology.Inthecaseofchildrenandyouthwithdisabilities,mainstreamtechnologyqualifiesasATifitmeetstheabovedefinition.Forthisreason,itisinappropriatetoconsiderATascompletelydistinctfromothereducationaltechnology.Manymainstreamdevices,suchaslaptops,tabletsandChromebooks,havebuilt‐inaccessibilityfeaturesthataffordinvaluablesupportsforstudentswithsensory,physicalandlearningchallenges;additionalsoftwareandappsextendtheusefulnessofthesedevicesforchildrenandyouthwithdisabilities.Atthesametime,thereare“dedicated”ATdevicesandtechnology‐enabledstrategiesthathavebeendevelopedspecificallyforindividualswithdisabilities.Interestingly,sometechnologiesthatwereoriginallydevelopedassupportsforpeoplewithdisabilitieshavebeenembracedbysocietyasawhole.Forexample,thewordpredictionthatenablesustocomposetextmessagesmoreefficientlywasoriginallydevelopedtoenhancethegenerationofmessages
39
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
inaugmentativecommunicationdevices,andthecaptioningthatletsuswatchTVinnoisyenvironmentsbeganasanaccommodationforindividualswithhearingloss.
UniversalDesignforLearning(UDL)representsanotherstrategyforengagingstudentswiththecurriculumandsupportingthemindemonstrationoftheircapabilities.Whenthecurriculumisuniversallydesigned,itcontainsamultitudeofdifferentaccesspointsforstudentswithdifferingstrengths,challengesandpreferences.Ratherthanassessmentorinstructionbeingdeliveredinoneway—towhichallstudentsmustaccommodate—itexpectsthatthecurriculumwillcontainbuilt‐inaffordances.Forexample,ratherthanrelyingonatextbooktobethesolepurveyorofinformation,auniversally‐designedlessonwouldoffermultiplewaystoaccessthesameinformation:intraditionalprint,indigitalformatsothattheprintcouldbetransformedinwaysthatimproveaccess(e.g.,madelarger,readaloud,convertedtoBraille),andinothermediasuchasanimateddemonstrationsorvideos.Assistivetechnologyoftenservesasthekeytoactivatingstudent’spreferredaccessto,andinteractionwith,auniversally‐designedcurriculum.
AlthoughtheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationImprovementAct(P.L.108‐446)nowgovernstheeducationofstudentswithdisabilitiesfrombirththroughthetimethattheyexitthepubliceducationsystem,itwasactuallythe1997reauthorizationthatdramaticallyimpactedaccesstoAT.The1997reauthorizationreferencedthedefinitionofATabove,anditalsorequiredconsiderationoftheATneedsofeverystudentreceivingspecialeducationservices.[27]Section504oftheRehabilitationActof1973,asamended,iscivilrightslegislationthatappliestoallstudentswithdisabilities,eventhosewhoarenoteligibleforspecialeducationservicesunderIDEA.Section504establishesstudents’entitlementtoATthatenablesthemtoaccessaneducationequaltothatprovidedtotheirpeerswithoutdisabilities.
ThereisabundantandincontrovertibleevidencethatassistivetechnologyaffordsaccesstothegeneraleducationcurriculumandenableschildrenandyouthtoparticipateandachievetoamuchgreaterextentthantheycouldwithoutATservicesandsupports.Assistivetechnologymitigatesthebarriersposedbystudents’physical,sensoryand/orcognitivelimitations,enablingstudentstodemonstratetheirgiftsandtalents.Asaconsequence,thedynamicsaroundexpectationschange,leadingstudents,theirfamiliesandthepeoplewhosupportthemtoenvisionafutureinwhichthestudentsarecollegeandcareerready,engageinlifelonglearning,andparticipateasactiveandcontributingmembersoftheircommunities.
Delaware Perspective
Students with Disabilities and Assistive Technology InDelaware,assistivetechnology(AT)consideration,accessanduseisquiteunevenacrossLEAs,andevenfromschooltoschoolandclassroomtoclassroom.OtherthanareiterationofthefederalrequirementsregardingATintheDelawareAdministrativeManualforSpecialEducationServices,theDelawareDepartmentofEducationhasissuednoadditionalguidancetoLEAsregardingATconsideration,accessanduse.Asevidencedindatacollectedatmanyjunctures,educationpersonnelfeelillequippedtomeettheirAT‐relatedobligationstostudentsbecauseofconfusionregardingrolesandresponsibilities,considerationandevaluationprocesses,andacquisitionmechanisms(includingfundingissues).
40
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Inmanyinstances,therequirementtoconsiderATforallstudentsforwhomanIEPisdevelopedisignored.Thismaybeduetoreluctancetoincurcosts,toignoranceofthelegalmandateforconsideration,tolackofknowledgeaboutavailableATandwhatitbringstothelearningenterprise,ortolackofclarityaboutwhohasresponsibilityfortheevaluationofstudentneedsandthedeterminationofthedevicesandservicesthatwillbestmeetstudentneeds.
ThedeploymentofATexpertiseacrossLEAsisalsoquiteuneven.SomeLEAshavededicatedATSpecialistsonstaffthatsupportteamdecision‐makingandassisteducatorsinimplementingATeffectively.OtherLEAshavenoformalizedmechanisms—orthepersonnelwhosupporttheirimplementation—relativetoATaccess,despitetheclearmandatesforATaccessanduseinIDEA.
TremendousbarrierstoATaccessarisefromtheperceivedlackoffundingforAT.PersonnelareimplicitlyandexplicitlyurgedtoavoidconsiderationofATforfearofthefiscalimplications,andthereseemstobeverylimitedawarenessofhowtomaximizemultiplesourcesoffinancialsupportforATaccess.
Withfederalfunding,theDelawareAssistiveTechnologyInitiative(DATI)wasestablishedin1991toconnectpeoplewithdisabilitieswiththetoolstheyneedinordertolearn,work,playandparticipateincommunitylifesafelyandeffectively.TheTechnology‐RelatedAssistanceActof1988authorizedtheestablishmentofanATprogramineachstateandterritorytoincreasecitizens’awarenessofandaccesstoAT.TheActwasreauthorizedin1994,withashiftinemphasistoeliminationofsystemicbarrierstoATaccess.TheATActof1998continuedsupportforstateATprograms,butdramaticallyreducedtheamountoffundingavailable.ThemostrecentauthorizationoftheActrequiresstateATprogramstoprovidefourcoreservices—ATdemonstration,ATloan,ATreuse,andalternativefinancingofAT—inadditiontotraining,technicalassistanceandcoordinationfunctions.
TheDATIisaprogramoftheCenterforDisabilitiesStudiesattheUniversityofDelaware.DATIoperatesanAssistiveTechnologyResourceCenterineachcountyinwhichDelawareresidentscanaccessequipmentdemonstrations,borrowdevicesfortrialuseatnocost,orparticipateinanequipmentexchangeprogramconnectingpeoplewhohaveATtheynolongerneedwiththosewhocoulduseit.ThecentersarestaffedbyknowledgeableATSpecialistswhohelpindividualsexploreAToptionsthatmightmeettheirneeds.Amongtheircustomersarepeoplewithdisabilitiesandtheirfamilymembers,educators,healthcareprofessionals,casemanagers,andotherswithaninterestinfacilitatingATaccess.DATIstaffassistcustomersinfindingameanstoacquiretheATtheyneed,andoperatesseveralequipmentgiveawayprograms.
Overtheyears,theDATIhascollaboratedwithmanystateagenciesseekingtoenhanceATaccessandusefortheirconstituents.DATIhaspartneredwiththeDelawareDepartmentofEducation(DDOE)inincreasingtheawarenessofeducatorsrelativetoAT,UniversalDesignforLearning(UDL),andaccessibleinstructionalmaterials(AIM).TheCenterforDisabilitiesStudiescurrentlyoperatestheDelawareAIMCenter,acentralizedsourceofaccessiblematerialstoLEAsstatewide,undercontractfromtheDDOE,andalsomanagestheSPEACSproject,whichseekstoenhancethecommunicationskillsofstudentswiththemostcomplexcommunicationneeds.
ThroughauniquepartnershipbetweentheDelawareGeneralAssemblyandtheStateofDelaware’sSecretaryofEducation,theDDOEwasauthorizedtoperformacomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationserviceswithinthestate’spublicschools.In
41
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
addition,DDOEwasauthorizedtocreateapositiontoconductthisreviewandsubsequentlycreateastrategicplan.ThiswasformalizedintheDelawareFY2015Budget,Section307Epilogue:“Saidreviewshallinclude,butnotbelimitedto,theprovisionandfundingofassistivetechnologyintheclassroom;thecoordinationanddistributionofinformationonservicesavailableforchildrenwithdisabilitiesthatcrossmultiplestateagencies;andcreatingastrategicplanforspecialeducationservices.”
Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations: Assistive Technology
Goal 7 ‐ Assistive Technology: Students Ensureallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilities,willhaveaccesstotechnologythatwillhelpthemlearnandachieve.
1. Createandadoptuniformguidanceaddressingassistivetechnologyconsideration,accessandsupportforchildrenwithdisabilitiesagesbirththrough3.
Rationale: Federallawmandatesthatchildrenwithdisabilitiesuptoage3haveaccesstoassistivetechnologysupportsandservicesthatenabletheirparticipationanddevelopment.
Recommendation7.1.1: DevelopandpromulgateDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelinesthatspecifyexpectationsregardingtheprocessesbywhichassistivetechnologyisconsidered,assistivetechnologyneedsareevaluated,assistivetechnologyisacquiredandcustomized,andchildrenandfamiliesaresupportedinusingATtoenhanceaccesstoandparticipationinroutinesandactivities.
2. Createandadoptuniformguidanceaddressingassistivetechnologyconsideration,accessandsupportforpreschool,elementary,andsecondarystudentswithdisabilities,ages3through21.
Rationale: FederallawmandatesthatstudentswithdisabilitiesservedinthePreK‐12educationsystemhaveaccesstoassistivetechnologysupportsandservicesthatenablethemtoaccessthegeneraleducationcurriculumandsucceedaslearners.
Recommendation7.2.1: DevelopandpromulgateDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelinesthatspecifyexpectationsregardingtheprocessesbywhichassistivetechnologyisconsidered,assistivetechnologyneedsareevaluated,assistivetechnologyisacquiredandcustomized,andstudentsaresupportedinusingassistivetechnologytolearn,demonstratetheirabilities,andtransitionsuccessfullyintoadultlife.
Recommendation7.2.2: Developandpromulgateguidancethatspecifiesexpectationsregardingtheprocurementofaccessibleeducationaltechnologyandtheprocessesforensuringcompatibilityamonginfrastructure,hardware,andsoftwaresothatstudentswithdisabilitieshavecontemporaneousaccesstothesamelearningopportunitiesastheirpeerswithoutdisabilities.
42
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
3. EstablishacentralizedfundtoassistearlyinterventionprovidersandLEAsinacquiringtheassistivetechnologydeterminedbyteamstobenecessaryforchildrenwithdisabilitiestobenefitfromearlyinterventionoreducationalservices.
Rationale: Accesstoassistivetechnologyisarightassuredthroughfederallaw(IDEA),yetaccesstoassistivetechnologycanbecompromisedbyfiscalconstraints.Thereareexistingfundingmechanismssupportingassistivetechnologyaccessanduse,yetthesemechanismsarenotutilizedtotheirfullpotential,inpartbecauseneithereligibilityparametersnortheprocessesforaccessingthesemechanismsareclear.Enhancedaccesstoassistivetechnologycanbefacilitatedthroughclarificationofthevariousfundingmechanismsthatcanbeaccessedinsupportofassistivetechnologyacquisition.AssistivetechnologyaccessshouldnotbeconstrainedbythefiscalchallengeswithinLEAs;theestablishmentofacentralizedfundtoassistintheacquisitionofassistivetechnologywillcontributesignificantlytoassuringconsistentandequitableaccesstoassistivetechnologythroughoutthestate.
Recommendation7.3.1: Clarify,viatheDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelines,therangeofpossiblesourcessupportingATacquisitionandthemechanismsforaccessingthosesources,andestablishacentralizedfundtoassistintheacquisitionofassistivetechnology,includingguidelinesforutilizationofthefundthatreflectthenecessityofstudent‐specificassistivetechnologyselectionandanexpectationofsharedstate/localobligation.
Recommendation7.3.2: SupporttheFY18assistivetechnologybudgetrequestintheworkfromtheDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology,authorizedbySection307oftheFY2015budgetepilogue.
Goal 8 ‐ Assistive Technology: Educators Alleducatorswillhavesufficientknowledge,skills,anddispositions—aswellasaccesstoconsistentandpredictableacquisitionmechanisms—toensurethatstudentswithdisabilitieshaveaccesstotheATneededforengagement,learningandskilldemonstration.
Strategies 1. CreatecompaniondocumentstotheIndividualizedEducationPlan(IEP)and
IndividualizedFamilyServicePlan(IFSP)thatpromptteamstoengageinassistivetechnologyconsiderationanddocumentationconsistentwithfederallawandDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidancedocuments.
Rationale: TheintegrationoftargetedassistivetechnologyguidanceinIEPtemplates/instructionswillaffordefficientaccesstosupportsforteamsastheyconsideranddocumentassistivetechnologyneedsaswellastheassistivetechnologyservicesandsupportsthatareneededforchildrentoreceiveafreeandappropriatepubliceducation(FAPE).Uniformguidancewillassistteamsacrossthestateinimplementationassistivetechnologyconsiderationanddocumentationinathoroughandconsistentmanner.
43
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Recommendation8.1.1: DevelopandembedelectronicassistivetechnologytemplatesthatcanbeusedandappendedtohardcopiesoftheIEP/IFSP.
2. Createanddelivercomprehensiveprofessionaldevelopmenttoensurethatall
educatorsactincompliancewithfederallawandtheDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelines.
Rationale: Theexistenceofguidancedoesnotguaranteecompliance.Itisessentialthatallpersonnelprovidingservicestochildrenwithdisabilitiesintheearlyinterventionandpubliceducationsystemareawareof,andfamiliarwith,theguidancesothattheycanprovideservicesandsupportsconsistentwiththemandatesexpressedinfederallaw.
Recommendation8.2.1: Createonlineandface‐to‐faceprofessionallearningopportunitiesforallmembersofachild’sIEP/IFSPteam.Thecontentshouldbedifferentiatedforarangeofaudienceswhoneedvaryingdegreesofdetail,andtherewillalsobeanoverviewdevelopedforfamiliesandstudents.
3. Establishcompetenciesforthoseservinginassistivetechnologyleadershiprolestoensurethatallteamshaveaccesstoadequateassistivetechnologyexpertise.
Rationale: Theassistivetechnologyfieldisinastateofperpetualevolution,anditisunrealistictoexpectthatalleducatorswillmaintaincurrentexpertiserelativetotheassistivetechnologymarketplaceaswellasmethodsandstrategiesforinfusionofassistivetechnologyintoeducationalprocesses.Rather,teamsshouldhaveconsistentandpredictableaccesstoindividualswhomaintainahighlevelofcompetencerelativetoassistivetechnologyandwhocanassistteamsinassistivetechnologyconsideration,evaluation,selectionanduse.
Recommendation8.3.1: Devisecompetenciesforthoseservinginassistivetechnologyleadershiprolesintheearlyinterventionandeducationalcontexts.Thecompetenciesshouldreferencehigh‐qualityeducationalpractices,expertiseinconsultationandfacilitationofteamprocesses,andtheexpectationthatthoseinATleadershiproleswillhavethedispositions,breadthofknowledge,anddepthofskilltosupportthefullrangeofATneededbystudents.
Current Funding Streams for Educational Technology Ifweexpecttohaveavibranttechnologyinfrastructure,computingdevicesinthehandsofourstudents,andteacherstrainedintheintegrationoftechnologythatwillprepareourstudentstobecollegeandcareerready,thestateneedstoprovidetheLEAsandstateagencieswithconsistent,dedicatedfundingstreamsfortechnologythatallowtheflexibilityfortheLEAstodeterminelocalneedandfundappropriately.
Broadband Funding Streams Since1994thestatehasprovidedarobusttechnologyinfrastructurethroughtheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformationthatprovidesbroadbandaccesstotheInternet
44
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
alongwithallcorenetworkservices.BroadbandaccessmigratedfromT1lines(1.4Mbps)to10Mbpscircuitsbeginningin2005withthevastmajorityofschoolsmigratedby2007andtheremainingschoolsbeingcompletedpriortoonlineassessmentin2010.TenMbpsstillremainsasthebaselinefundedbythestate,althoughLEAshavetheoptionofincreasingthisbandwidthattheircostcreatingequityissuesacrossthestate.Thedistrictsuperintendents,toensurecapacitytodeliverdigitallearningopportunitiestoourstudents,havemadetheincreaseofbroadbandaccesstoaminimumof100Mbpsintheelementaryschoolsand1Gbps(1,000Mbps)inthemiddleschoolsandhighschoolastheirnumberonefundingrequestforFY17.
IncreasingbroadbandaccesswillalsoinvolveupgradingcapacityatthecoreofthenetworkatDTIandupgradingtheinternalnetworksintheschoolssuchasswitches,fiberbetweenwiringclosets(thefiberiscurrentlycloseto20yearsoldandisnotcapableoftransmittingbroadbandspeedsof1Gbpsand10Gbps),andwirelessaccess.Currently,eventhoughthestatehastraditionallysupportedthetelecommunicationsinfrastructure,theLEAsarefullyresponsibleforthewirelessnetworksinourschoolsincludingallcostsandwhatwirelesssystemtouse.
Since1998,therehasbeenfederalsupportthroughtheE‐rateprogramforbothbroadbandaccess(Category1services)andinternalconnections(Category2services).WiththeE‐ratemodernizationin2014,Delawarenowhastheopportunitytoreceivefundingforinternalconnections,includingwireless.TheE‐rateprovidesatremendousopportunitytoupgradetheinternaltelecommunicationsinfrastructureofourschoolswiththesupportofCategory2fundsatgreatcostsavings.WithE‐rateCategory2services,eachschoolcanrequestupto$150perstudentoverafive‐yearperiod.UsingE‐ratediscountdataandstudentenrollmentforthe2015‐2016schoolyear,therewere135,152studentswhichmeansourschoolscanrequestover$20million($20,272.8)inE‐rateCategory2servicesthatwillbediscountedby$14,604.5(72.04%)withthebalance,overthefive‐yearfundingcycle,of$5,668.3beingtheresponsibilityoftheschools.Currently,thisentirecostfallsontheLEAseventhoughtraditionally,thestatehassupportedthetelecommunicationsinfrastructure.Asthisreportisbeingwritten,thesecondyearofthefive‐yearcycleisapproachingandonlyaminimalnumberofLEAstookadvantageofthisopportunityinthefirstyear.
Computing Device Funding Streams Thestatehasperiodicallysupportedthepurchaseofcomputers.BeginninginFY99,withadedicatedfundingstreamforaperiodofthreeyears,thestateprovided$13million($13,000.0)withthedistrictsproviding$7million($7,000.0)forclassroomtechnology.InFY99,knowingthattheinfluxofcomputerswouldrequiretechnicalsupport,districtsweregiventhecapabilityofgeneratinghalftheirlocalmatch(approximately$3.5million($3,500.0)statewide)in“matchingfunds”fromthetaxbasefortechnicalsupport.Withtheadventofonlineassessmentandtheconcernofhavingenoughcomputerstosupportbothonlineassessmentanddigitallearning,beginninginFY14thestateprovided$2.65million($2,650.0)inannualfundingforthepurchaseoftechnologytosupportonlineassessment,throughadedicatedfundingstreamviatheOfficeofManagementandBudget,.
Overtheyears,thefundingoftechnologysupportandreplacementcyclesforcomputershavebeentopicsofdiscussion.InFY01theTechnologyBlockGrantof$1million($1,000.0)wasputintoplacetoaddresstheseissuesgivingdistrictsafundingstreamtoprovidetechnologysupportandtopurchasecomputers.TheTechnologyBlockGrantisagoodfundingmechanism,buthasneverbeenfundedatthelevelsufficienttosupplytheneeded
45
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
supportorreplacementcyclesforcomputers.InFY16,theTechnologyBlockGrantwas$2.25million($2,250.0).
TheDelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologysupportsonlineprofessionallearningandmandatorytrainingthroughtheeLearningDelawareprogram.FundingforeLearningDelawarecomesfromtheDCEToperationsbudget.Oureducatorsdeservejust‐in‐time,ondemand,self‐pacedcoursesandonlineprofessionallearningopportunitiesalignedtoidentifiedareasofgrowthforcontinuousimprovement.Inaddition,thereisn’tsufficientfundingtosupportthedevelopmentoftherepositoryofinstructionalmaterialincludingthevettingofresources.TheminimaleLearningDelawarebudgetwillneedtobeincreasedtomeetthedemand.
TheeLearningDelawareprogramusestheSchoologyLearningManagementSystemtodeliveronlinecontent.Inaddition,24LEAs(121schoolswithapproximately80,000students)areusingSchoologytodeliverblendedlearningopportunitiestoK‐12students.TheDDOEandLEAshaveacostsharefortheSchoologyaccountswherethestatepays$1.83perstudentaccountandtheLEAspay$1.50.Withthepurchaseofstudentaccounts,alleducatoraccountsareatnoadditionalcost.Thebudgetrequestof$48,000($48.0)is$30,000($30.0)tocovertheincreaseinactualcostsincurredinFY16for80,000studentaccountsand$18,000($18.0)fortheexpectedincreaseto110,000studentsoverthenexttwoyears.TheGovernor’sRecommendedBudgetincludesthe$30,000($30.0)formaintainingthecurrentuse,butnotthe$18,000($18.0)formorestudents.Inaddition,wehaveaone‐timeopportunityinJune2016todecreasetheperstudentcostfrom$3.33to$3.00ifwereach100,000students.Withoutthefundingfortheincreaseinstudentparticipation,wewillneedtomaintainthe80,000studentaccountsandlosetheopportunitytoreduceourperstudentcost.
Funding Recommendations for Our Path Forward Notallgoals,strategies,andrecommendationshavedirectbudgetimplications,butthosethatdomustbeaddressed.Theremustbeconsistent,dedicatedfundingstreamstoaddress:
thenetworkcore,broadbandaccess,InternetaccessandassociatedservicesasprovidedbytheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation;
internalschoolnetworks,includingwirelessaccess,toachievea5–7yearreplacementcycle;
atechnologyallocationfundthatcanbeusedtopurchaseorleasecomputingdevices,providetechnicalsupport,andprovideforprofessionallearningforeducators;
thematchingprovisionsoftheTechnologyBlockGrantfortechnologysupport; theexpansionandgrowthofeLearningDelaware; astatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources; theperstudentcostofthelearningmanagementsystemforK‐12studentuse;and assistivetechnologyforstudentswithdisabilities.
Thefollowingrecommendationsaddresstheadditionalfundingneededtoaccomplishthegoalsandstrategiesinthisplan.
Note:Budgetamountsareinthousands($1,000.0=$1,000,000=$1million)
46
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
A. Providefundingforthenetworkcore,broadbandaccess,InternetaccessandassociatedservicesasprovidedbytheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation.(ReferenceGoal2,Strategy1.)
BudgetRecommendation1Supportthe$3,000.0FY17budgetrequestfromDDOEthatwillensureallelementaryschoolswillhave100Mbpsbandwidthcapabilityandallmiddleandhighschoolswillhave1Gbps(1,000Mbps)forthe2016‐2017schoolyearaswellasassociatedincreasesatthenetworkcoretosupportthebandwidthincrease.ThisrequestispartoftheGovernor’sRecommendedFY17BudgetplacingthefundsatDTI.
BudgetRecommendation2Request$1,200.0inFY18toincreasebandwidthforallschoolsto1GbpstoalignwithFCC/SETDAguidelinesandincreaseassociatednetworkcoreservicestosupportthebandwidthincrease.
B. ProvidefundinginconjunctionwiththeE‐ratediscountstructureforinternalschoolnetworks,includingwirelessaccess,toachievea5–7yearreplacementcycle.(ReferenceGoal2,Strategy2.)
BudgetRecommendation3EstablishanE‐rateCategory2fundingstreamof$1,250.0annuallytocoverthedistrict/statecostofE‐rateCategory2eligibleservices.
BudgetRecommendation4ExplorethepossibilityofcreatinganE‐rateCategory2fundingstreambyestablishingaDelawareUniversalServicesFund(USF)forE‐rate,notunliketheDelawareBroadbandFund.
C. Establishatechnologyallocationfundthatcanbeusedtopurchaseorleasecomputingdevices,providetechnicalsupport,andprovideforprofessionallearningforeducators.(ReferenceGoal2,Strategy3.)
BudgetRecommendation5ExpandthepurposeandsizeoftheTechnologyBlockGrantsoitcanbeusedasthefundingstreamfora“technologyallocation”totheLEAsthatwouldincludetheabilitytoprovidefortechnologysupport(positionorcontractual),lease/purchaseofcomputingdevices,professionallearning(DigitalLearningCoach),andothertechnology‐relatedneedsoftheLEA.
BudgetRecommendation6Supportthe$1,000.0FY17budgetrequestfromDDOEtoincreasetheTechnologyBlockGrantfrom$2,250.0to$3,250.0.ThisrequestispartoftheGovernor’sRecommendedFY17Budget.
BudgetRecommendation7InFY18,movethe$2,650.0annualfundingusedfromFY14‐FY17forthepurchase/leaseofcomputersfromOMBtotheTechnologyBlockGrant.
47
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
BudgetRecommendation8IncreasetheTechnologyBlockGrantfundingbyaminimumof$1,000.0annuallybeginninginFY18untilthetotalamountreachestheequivalentofonehundreddollars($100)perstudent.
D. UpdatethelocaltechnologysupportmatchingprovisionoftheTechnologyBlockGrant
(14Del.C.1902(b)and71DelLaws,c.378).(ReferenceGoal2,Strategy3.)
BudgetRecommendation9Currently,theTechnologyBlockGrantmatchingfundsaretiedtoFY98DivisionIunitallocations.ThematchingfundscapshouldbeadjustedtoalignwiththeamountallocatedthroughtheTechnologyBlockGrantoncetheTechnologyBlockGrantexceeds$3,500.0.
E. ProvidefundingtoexpandandgroweLearningDelawaretoincludedevelopmentanddeliveryofonlineprofessionallearning,researchandcollaborationopportunities,andastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources.(ReferenceGoal5,Strategies2‐4andGoal6,Strategies1‐2.)
BudgetRecommendation10Provide$500.0inFY18andanadditional$250.0inFY19toeLearningDelawaretosupportthedevelopmentanddeliveryofonlineprofessionallearning,researchandcollaborationopportunities,andastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources.
F. ProvidefundingtotheDepartmentofEducationtoprovideatleast50%oftheperstudentcostoftheSchoologyLearningManagementSystemforK‐12studentuse.(ReferenceGoal6,Strategy3.)
BudgetRecommendation11Supportthe$48.0FY17budgetrequestfromDDOEtosupporttheincreaseinannualsubscriptionservicefeesforSchoologyduetoincreaseinnumberofstudentsusingthesystem.ThisrequestispartiallyintheGovernor’sRecommendedFY17Budget‐$30.0isincludedtocoveractualcostsincurredinFY16,but$18.0isNOTincludedtocoveradditionalstudentparticipationinFY17.
G. EstablishacentralizedfundtoassistearlyinterventionprovidersandLEAsinacquiringtheassistivetechnologydeterminedbyteamstobenecessaryforchildrenwithdisabilitiestobenefitfromearlyinterventionoreducationalservices.(ReferenceGoal7,Strategy3)
BudgetRecommendation12StronglyrecommendsupportingtheFY18assistivetechnologybudgetrequest,amounttobedeterminedinfall2016,intheworkfromtheDelawareDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology,perFY15EpilogueSection307.
48
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
References [1] DelawareCenterforEducationalTechnologyStrategicPlanFY1997–FY1999at
http://www.dcet.k12.de.us/admin/DCETStrategicPlan97Original.pdf
[2] ModernizingE‐Rate,FederalCommunicationsCommissionathttps://www.fcc.gov/e‐rate‐update
[3] RemarksofCommissionerJessicaRosenworcelFederalCommunicationsCommissionTexasComputerEducationAssociation,Austin,Texas,February4,2015athttps://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC‐331901A1.pdf
[4] Thenumbersbehindthebroadbandhomeworkgap,ThePewResearchCenterathttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact‐tank/2015/04/20/the‐numbers‐behind‐the‐broadband‐homework‐gap/
[5] SpeakUp2015,ProjectTomorrowathttp://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/
[6] ConnectHomeathttp://connecthome.hud.gov/
[7] Connect2Competeathttp://cox.connect2compete.org/welcome.aspx
[8] U.S.DepartmentofEducationOfficeofEducationalTechnologyathttp://tech.ed.gov/
[9] NationalEducationTechnologyPlan,FutureReadyLearningathttp://tech.ed.gov/netp/
[10] EducationSuperHighwayathttp://www.educationsuperhighway.org
[11] TheBroadbandImperative,SETDAathttp://www.setda.org/priorities/equity‐of‐access/the‐broadband‐imperative/
[12] BroadbandinDelawareathttp://www.BroadbandNow.com/Delaware
[13] PencilsDown:TheShifttoOnlineandComputer‐BasedTesting,EdTechStrategiesathttp://www.edtechstrategies.com/research‐and‐writing/usk‐8‐testing/
[14] MicrosoftExpectedtoFightBackinGlobalK‐12Marketin2016athttp://www.futuresource‐consulting.com/2015‐12‐K‐12‐Google‐Chromebooks‐2983.html
[15] DeviceRequirementsforSmarterBalancedAssessmentsathttp://www.smarterbalanced.org/assessments/testing‐technology/devices‐and‐browsers/
[16] IsK‐12BlendedLearningDisruptive?AnIntroductionoftheTheoryofHybrids,Christensen,HornandStakerathttp://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/hybrids/
[17] StateoftheK‐12Market2014,PartII:EducationalMaterials,MarketDataRetrieval,http://schooldata.com/
[18] DigitalInstructionalMaterialsAcquisitionPoliciesforStates,SETDAathttp://dmaps.setda.org
49
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
[19] TeachersKnowBest:Teachers’ViewsonProfessionalDevelopment,TheBill&MelindaGatesFoundationathttp://collegeready.gatesfoundation.org/2015/05/teachers‐know‐best‐2/
[20] LinkingtotheFuture,BRINCConsortiumathttp://www.doe.k12.de.us/cms/lib09/DE01922744/Centricity/Domain/95/04SIIP13‐58BrINCLinkingtoFuture.pdf
[21] Delaware’sBRINCDistrictsCollaboratetoPersonalizeLearningforAllStudents,U.S.DepartmentofEducationat http://sites.ed.gov/progress/2015/11/delawares‐brinc‐districts‐collaborate‐to‐personalize‐learning‐for‐all‐students/
[22] TheK‐12OERCollaborativeathttp://k12oercollaborative.org
[23] TheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)athttp://www.ccsso.org/resources/programs/interstate_teacher_assessment_consortium_(intasc).html
[24] TheInternationalSocietyforTechnologyinEducation(ISTE)atwww.iste.org
[25] TexasGatewayathttp://www.texasgateway.org/?newsid=/
[26] IndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationActathttp://idea.ed.gov
[27] Dell,A.,Newton,D.,&Petroff,G.(2012).Assistivetechnologyintheclassroom:Enhancingtheschoolexperiencesofstudentswithdisabilities,(2nded.)UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.
50
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Appendix A: Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 22
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 22
SPONSOR: Sen.Townsend&Sen.Sokola&Rep.Jaques&Rep.ParadeeSen.Bonini
DELAWARESTATESENATE148THGENERALASSEMBLY
SENATECONCURRENTRESOLUTIONNO.22
ESTABLISHINGATASKFORCETOSTUDYEDUCATIONALTECHNOLOGYANDUPDATETHESTATEEDUCATIONALTECHNOLOGYPLAN
WHEREASDelawarestudentsaredigitalnativeswholiveinaglobal,connectedworldand
needtobeeducatedinthisspacetobemadecollegeandcareerready;and
WHEREASallDelawarestudentsdeservetohaveaccesstoeducationaltechnologiesto
enhancelearningandprovidethemwiththetechnologicalskillsandsavvytheywillneedtobe
productiveandgloballycompetitivecitizens;and
WHEREAStherearesixschooldistrictsparticipatingintheBrandywine,IndianRiver,New
CastleCountyVotechandColonial(“BRINC”)consortiumthatismodelingtheuseoftechnologyin
classrooms,providingprofessionaldevelopmentforteachers,andprovidingvaluableinsightfor
lessonslearnedabouttheexpandinguseofinstructionaltechnology;and
WHEREAStheeducatorpreparationprogramsinDelawareareincludingtheuseof
technologyforinstructionintheircurriculum;and
WHEREASteachersneedongoingprofessionaldevelopmenttoensuretheyareableto
confidentlyandeffectivelyintegratetechnologyasaninstructionaltoolintheirclassrooms;and
WHEREAStheStateofDelawarecurrentlypaysfor10megabytesofbandwidthtoschools,
whichfallswellbelowtherecommendedamounttosupporttheinternetneedsofthestudent
population;and
WHEREASinfrastructureshouldbeengineeredtosupporttheinternetdemandofaschoolin
ordertosupportcurrentandinnovativetechnologyuses;and
WHEREAStheavailabilityofassistivetechnologyisofparticularimportancetothe
successfuleducationofstudentswithspecialneedsandisinfluencedbythefundsavailabletopublic
schools’specialeducationprograms;and
WHERAStheStateofDelawareEducationalTechnologyPlanhasnotbeenupdatedsince
2001;
NOW,THEREFORE:
51
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
BEITRESOLVEDbytheSenateofthe148thGeneralAssemblyoftheStateofDelaware,the
HouseofRepresentativesconcurringtherein,thata“TaskForceonStateEducationalTechnology”is
established.
BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthattheTaskForceonStateEducationalTechnologyshallreviewthe
currentconditionoftechnologyinthepubliceducationclassroomsandeducationalsettingsofthe
StateandshallprepareaplantooutlineactionsthatsupportDelawarebecomingthepremierstate
forutilizingtechnologyinpre‐kindergartentograde12education.Thetaskforceshall:
(a) ReviewcurrentneedofexpansionofState‐providedbandwidth;
(b) Determinethecurrentuseofeducationaltechnologyinclassroomsoreducation
settingsoftheState;
(c) Determinethecurrentuseofeducationaltechnology,assistivetechnologyand
instructionalmaterialsforstudentswithspecialneedsandincorporate,asappropriate,
theworkfromtheDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryof
specialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology,authorizedbySection307of
theFY2015budgetepilogue;
(d) Determinethecurrentreadinessofstafftoteachusingeducationaltechnologyinthe
State’spubliceducationclassroomsandeducationsettingsanddeterminetheneedfor
improvedongoingprofessionaldevelopmentintheintegrationoftechnologyand
assistivetechnologyinteachingandutilizationoftheStateeducationaltechnology
standards;
(e) Recommendstrategiesandgoalsforimprovingandequalizingaccesstoanduseof
educationaltechnologyandassistivetechnologyinallpublicschoolsystemsacrossthe
State,includingState‐runschools;
(f) Coordinatestrategiesforpre‐kindergartentograde12educationaltechnologywith
nationalstandards;
(g) RecommendaphasedplanfortheimplementationoftheStateeducationaltechnology
plan;
(h) RecommendafundingplanfortheimplementationoftheStateeducationaltechnology
plan;
(i) Recommendaplantotrackandassessprogressintheimplementationofgoalsset
forthintheStateEducationalTechnologyPlan.
BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthattheTaskForceshallbecomposedofthefollowingmembers,or
adesigneeappointedbytherespectivememberservingbyvirtueofposition:
(a) TheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofEducation;
(b) TheSpecialEducationOfficeroftheDepartmentofEducation;
52
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
(c) TheGovernorshallappointonememberwithexpertiseinbusiness,technology,or
both;
(d) TheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation;
(e) TheSecretaryoftheOfficeofManagementandBudget;
(f) TheControllerGeneral;
(g) TheChairoftheSenateEducationCommittee;
(h) TheChairoftheHouseEducationCommittee;
(i) OnememberoftheStateBoardofEducation;
(j) FourmembersappointedbytheDelawareChiefsAssociationwithatleast2ofthe
membersfromdistrictsparticipatingintheBRINCconsortium;
(a) OnememberoftheDigitalLearningCadreappointedbytheSecretaryofEducation;
(b) OnememberappointedbytheGovernor’sAdvisoryCouncilforExceptionalCitizens;
(c) OneschoolleaderappointedbytheDelawareAssociationofStateAdministrators;
(d) TwoeducatorsappointedbytheDelawareStateEducationAssociationthathavea
strongbackgroundinusingtechnologyintheclassroom;
(e) OneeducatorappointedbytheCharterSchoolNetworkthathasastrongbackground
inusingtechnologyintheclassroom;
BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthatEducationalTechnologyTaskforceshallbeadministeredwith
staffsupportusingtheresourcesoftheDepartmentofEducationandtheDepartmentof
InformationandTechnology.ArepresentativeoftheDepartmentofEducationshallactasChair
oftheTaskForce.TheTaskForceshallconveneitsfirstmeetingnolaterthan60daysafter
enactmentandshallmeeteveryothermonththereafter.TheTaskForceshallreportandpresent
itsfindingsbyMarch30,2016totheChairandmembersoftheBondCommittee,theJoint
FinanceCommitteeandtheHouseandSenateEducationCommittees.
SYNOPSIS
ThisresolutionestablishesaTaskForceonStateEducationalTechnology.TheTaskForcewillreviewhowtechnologyisusedinpubliceducationclassrooms.TheTaskForcemustmakecertaindeterminationsandissuerecommendations.ATaskForcereportshallbecompletedbyMarch30,2016.
Author:SenatorTownsend
53
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Appendix B: Teacher Survey
Section One:Demographics1.1 Inwhichdistrictdoyoucurrentlyteach?1.2 Whatisthenameofyourschool?(Pleasetypetheentire"official"name)1.3 Areyou?
o Aregularclassroomteachero A"specials"teachersuchasPE,music,art,etc.o Aspecialeducationteachero ALibrariano AGuidanceCounseloro Nurseo Paraeducatoro Other
1.4 Howmanyyearshaveyoubeenintheteachingprofession?
o 1‐5o 6‐10o 11‐15o 16‐20o 21ormore
1.5 Whatgradelevel(s)doyouteach?
EarlyChildhood(Ages3‐5) ElementarySchool(K‐5) MiddleSchool(6‐8) HighSchool(9‐12) Other
1.6 WheredidyouearnyourBachelor'sdegree?
o DelawareStateUniversityo UniversityofDelawareo WilmingtonUniversityo WesleyCollegeo DelawareTechnicalandCommunityCollegeo AnInstitutionoutsidethestateofDelawareo NOBachelor'sDegree
1.7 Haveyouearnedanadvanceddegree?
o Masterso Doctorateo NoadvancedDegree
54
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
1.8 Youradvanceddegreewasearnedwasfrom...o DelawareStateUniversityo UniversityofDelawareo WilmingtonUniversityo WesleyCollegeo DelawareTechnicalandCommunityCollegeo AnInstitutionoutsidethestateofDelawareo NoAdvanceddegreeo Currentlyenrolledinanadvanceddegreeprogram
1.9 Howwouldyourateyourlevelofcomputerexperience?
o Non‐usero Noviceo Intermediateo Experienced
1.10 Howwouldyourateyourleveloftechnologyintegrationintostudentlearning?
o Multipletimesperweeko Onceaweeko Fewtimesamontho Fewtimesayearo Notatall
1.11 Estimatehowmanyhoursoftechnologyprofessionaldevelopmentyouhavereceived
withinthepasttwoyears.o 0‐4hourso 5‐10hourso 11‐20hourso Morethan20hours
1.12 Howoftendoyouuseacomputerathome?
o Onceadayo Onceaweeko Fewtimesamontho Fewtimesayearo Notatall
1.13 Iuseacomputerforthefollowingactivities...(checkallthatapply)
WordProcessing Drill/Practice SolveProblemsandAnalyzeData CreateInstructionalMaterials RecordKeepingandGradeBook LessonPlans Internet CommunicationwithStudents
55
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
CommunicationwithParents Presentations AdministeringAssessments EnteringorviewingIndividualEducationPlans(IEPs)orpartsoftheIEPrelevant
toyourinteractionswiththestudent Accommodations/AccesstoCurriculum Blended"Personalized"Learning
1.14 Whattypesoftechnologytraininghaveyouparticipatedinpreviously?(Checkallthat
apply) AssistiveTechnology BasicComputerUse SoftwareApplications UseofInternet IntegrationofTechnology Follow‐UpTrainingSessions Blended"Personalized"Learning None
1.15 Whatare"TWO"waysyoulearnbestonhowtousetechnology?
Independently SmallGroup/One‐on‐OneProfessionalDevelopmentActivities Colleagues Students Collegeorgraduatework LargeGroupProfessionalDevelopmentActivities OnlineProfessionalDevelopmentModules
1.16 Doyouteachinaclassroomdesignedfortechnology(meaningatleastacomputerfor
everythreestudentsandaSmartBoardoranothercomputer‐relatedlearningdevice)?o Yeso No
1.17 Whichofthefollowingtechnologiesdoyouhaveaccesstoinyourclassroom?
AssistiveTechnology Personalcomputersorlaptops Television/DVR Projectors Interactivewhiteboard Handhelds(includingcellphones,smartphones,iTouch… Tablets/electronicreaders(iPad,Kindle,etc.) Interactivetable(Smarttable) Gamedevices(NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.)
1.18 Foreachtechnologydevicelisted,pleaseselecttheratioofunit/devicesto
teacher/studentsinyourclassroom.
56
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
ResponseLegend:1=Onedeviceforeverystudent2=Onedeviceforeverytwo‐fivestudents3=Onedeviceforeverysix‐tenstudents4=Onedeviceforeveryeleven‐fifteenstudents5=Onedeviceforteacherandonedevicesharedforallstudents6=Onedevicesharedbyteacherandallstudents7=Onedeviceforteacher’suseonlyGamedevices(NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/APersonalComputerorLaptops 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/AHandhelds(includingcellphones,smartphones,iTouchdevices) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/ATablets/electronicreaders 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/ASharedLaptopCarts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
1.19 Thispastschoolyear,howmanystudents,onaverage,doyouhaveinyourclassroom
atonetime?o 0o 1‐10o 11‐20o 21‐30o 30+
SectionTwo:SkillsandKnowledge2.1 Whichofthefollowingresourcesdoyoucurrentlyusetoenhanceandsupportyour
teachingefforts/demandsofyourposition? AssistiveTechnology OnlineLessonPlans Web‐basedinteractivegamesoractivities Websitetodeliver/manageclassinformationtoparents/students Onlinearticlestiedtoinstruction Onlineimages Onlinevideocontent Onlineprofessionaldevelopment GoogleMaps/GoogleEarth Onlinecommunitydiscussionforumsforteachers CloudStorage SocialMedia MobileApps Blogs Podcasts Noneofthese
2.2 Foreachofthefollowingtechnologies,pleaseselecthowtheyareusedMOST
FREQUENTLYinyourclassroom/position.ResponseLegend:1=Managementtoolusedbyteacher/educator2=Teachingtoolusedbyteacher/educator3=Self‐directedlearningtoolusedbystudentsInteractivewhiteboard(e.g.,SMARTBoard) 1 2 3 N/AInteractivetable(e.g.,SMARTTable) 1 2 3 N/APersonalcomputersorlaptops 1 2 3 N/ATablets/electronicreaders(iPad,Kindle,etc.) 1 2 3 N/A
57
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Handhelds(includingsmartphones,iTouchdevices) 1 2 3 N/AGamedevices(e.g.,NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.) 1 2 3 N/AProjector(todisplay/showmediafromwebsites/browser) 1 2 3 N/ATelevision/DVR 1 2 3 N/A
2.3 TheamountoftimeyouspendworkingwithApplicationsandInternettoenhance
studentlearning.ResponseLegend:1=Never2=Yearly3=Monthly4=Weekly5=DailyInternetfordevelopinglessonplans/ideas 1 2 3 4 5Appsfortablets 1 2 3 4 5AssistiveTechnologyTools 1 2 3 4 5TestPreparation 1 2 3 4 5WebDesign 1 2 3 4 5Managementprogramsforstudentdata 1 2 3 4 5
SectionThree:OpinionsandAttitudes3.1 Whichofthefollowingbenefitshaveyouseenwithyourstudentsinyourclassroom
duetotheuseofeducationaltechnology?(Checkallthatapply) Abletoaccesscurriculummoreeffectively Abletoreinforceandexpandoncontentbeingtaught Abletoincreasestudentmotivationtolearn Abletorespondtoavarietyoflearningstyles AbletodemonstratesomethingIcan'tshowanyotherway Abletomakestudentsmoretechnology‐literate Abletoprovideadditionalpracticetostrugglinglearners/students Abletochangethepaceofclassroomwork Abletoteachcurrenteventsandbreakingnews Noneofthese NotApplicable
3.2 Whichofthefollowingstatementsdescribehowyoufeelabouttheuseofeducational
technologyintheclassroomtoday?(Checkallthatapply) Thetechnologytodayallowsteacherstodomuchmorethaneverbefore Technologyisanewandexcitingwayofcommunicatingwithandmotivating
students Kidstodayaredigitalnatives;weneedourclassroomstoembracea21stcentury
curriculum Technologyisamotivatingandusefultool,butshouldnotbeoverlyreliedupon Technologyisateachingaidthatwouldbehardtolivewithout Technologyhasanoticeableimpactonstudentlearning Studentsareabletoharnessthepowerofthetechnologythatkidsarealready
surroundedbyandusingitforeducationalprogress Technologycreatesanenvironmentofgreaterstudentcollaboration Iusedtobeskepticalaboutdigitalmediabenefits,butamnowastrongsupporter Technologyisbecomingmoreofacrutchthanitoughttobe Technologyismoreofadistractionthananteachingasset Technologyrequirestoomuchplanning/maintenance
58
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Noneofthese3.3 Pleasechoosethestatementthatbestappliestoyourcurrentthinking.
o Iwishwehadmoretechnologyinmyclassroom/ourclassrooms.o Iwishwehadlesstechnologyinmyclassroom/ourclassrooms.o Mystudents/ourstudentswantmoretechnologyintheclassroombutIdonot.o Theleveloftechnologywehavenowisjustfine.
3.4 Whichofthefollowingusesdoyoufeelaremostbeneficialtostudentlearning?
(Checkallthatapply.) Educationalapps Educationalwebsites E‐books/textbooks At‐deskindividualresearchandactivities Groupexercisesandassignments Motivatingreinforcer Modifications/accommodationsforstudentswithIEPs Cloudstorageaccess(GoogleDocs,Dropbox,etc.) Supportformotor‐impairedorlanguage‐impairedstudents Photos/videos Other
3.5 Haveyouaskedformoretechnologyresourcesforyourclassroom?
o Yeso No
3.6 Asnewtechnologybecomesavailablefortheclassroom,whichofthefollowing
describeshowyoufeel?(Checkallthatapply) Weneedtouseallthetoolsavailabletous–embracinga21st‐centurycurriculum
thatwillpreparekidsforthefuture. IfeelcomfortableexperimentingwithnewtechnologyasitbecomesavailableI
likenewtechnology,butIwishhadmoredirectiononhowtouseit Iliketheideaofusingnewtechnology,butoftenthekidsknowmorethanIdo Technologyhelpsmecollaborateasaprofessionalwithotherteachers Iwishwehadaspecialdepartmentwhosesolejobistohelpsupportuson
technology Technologyincreasestheneededskillofcollaborationamongstudents Traditionallyweavoidedscreentimeintheclassroom,buttodaytheuseofthe
righteducationaltechnologyenhanceslearning. Iamjustgettingusedtousingoldertechnologyanditcanbeoverwhelmingto
keepupwithnewdevelopments Itwouldrequiretoomuchplanning/maintenance Noneofthese
59
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
3.7 Ifyoureceivedagrantthatcouldbeputtowardsanyonetechnologyyouwantedintheclassroom,whatwoulditbe?Forthepurposeofthisquestion,pleaseassumeyoudonotcurrentlyhaveanyofthesetechnologies.o InteractiveWhiteBoardo Pads/tabletsforeachchildo Computer/laptopforeachchildo Interactivetable(e.g.SmartTable)o Projector(todisplay/showmediafromwebsites/browser)
3.8 Pleaserateeachofthefollowingtechnologiesbasedonyourunderstandingofeachto
enhancelearning(whetherthesedevicesarecurrentlyusedinyourclassroomornot).ResponseLegend:1=Doesnotenhance2=Somewhatenhances3=Verymuchenhances4=ExtremelyenhancesInteractivewhiteboard(e.g.,SMARTBoard) 1 2 3 4 N/AInteractivetable(e.g.,SMARTTable) 1 2 3 4 N/APersonalcomputersorlaptops 1 2 3 4 N/ATablets/electronicreaders(iPad,Kindle,etc.) 1 2 3 4 N/AHandhelds(includingsmartphones,iTouchdevices) 1 2 3 4 N/AGamedevices(e.g.,NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.) 1 2 3 4 N/AProjector(todisplay/showmediafromwebsites/browser) 1 2 3 4 N/ATelevision/DVR 1 2 3 4 N/A
3.9 Howoftenwouldyousayyouuseeachofthefollowingtechnologiesforteachingand
learning?ResponseLegend:1=LessthanOnceaMonth/Never2=Atleast1‐3timespermonth3=AtleastonceaWeek(net)4=EverydayInteractivewhiteboard(e.g.,SMARTBoard) 1 2 3 4Interactivetable(e.g.,SMARTTable) 1 2 3 4Personalcomputersorlaptops 1 2 3 4Tablets/electronicreaders(iPad,Kindle,etc.) 1 2 3 4Handhelds(includingsmartphones,iTouchdevices) 1 2 3 4Gamedevices(e.g.,NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.) 1 2 3 4Projector(todisplay/showmediafromwebsites/browser) 1 2 3 4Television/DVR 1 2 3 4
3.10 Areyouusingtheseeducationaltechnologiesmorefrequently,thesame,orlessfrequentlythanayearago?ResponseLegend:1=NotApplicable2=LessFrequently3=SameFrequency4=MoreFrequentlyInteractivewhiteboard(e.g.,SMARTBoard) 1 2 3 4Interactivetable(e.g.,SMARTTable) 1 2 3 4Personalcomputersorlaptops 1 2 3 4Tablets/electronicreaders(iPad,Kindle,etc.) 1 2 3 4Handhelds(includingsmartphones,iTouchdevices) 1 2 3 4Gamedevices(e.g.,NintendoDS,Kinect,Wii,etc.) 1 2 3 4Projector(todisplay/showmediafromwebsites/browser) 1 2 3 4Television/DVR 1 2 3 4
60
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
3.11 Whenusingtheinternet...ResponseLegend:1=StronglyDisagree2=Disagree3=NeitherDisagreeorAgree4=Agree5=StronglyAgreeStudentscreateproductsthatshowhigherlevelsoflearning 1 2 3 4 5Therearemoredisciplineproblems 1 2 3 4 5Studentsaremoremotivated 1 2 3 4 5Studentsgotoinappropriatesites 1 2 3 4 5Thereismorestudentcollaboration 1 2 3 4 5Plagiarismbecomesabiggerproblem 1 2 3 4 5
3.12 Ithink...ResponseLegend:1=StronglyDisagree2=Disagree3=NeitherDisagreeorAgree4=Agree5=StronglyAgreeElectronicmediawillreplaceprintedtextwithinfiveyears 1 2 3 4 5Mosttechnologywouldimprovemyabilitytoteach 1 2 3 4 5TechnologyhaschangedthewaythatIteach 1 2 3 4 5StudentsaremoreknowledgeablethanIamwhenitcomestotechnology 1 2 3 4 5Schoolsystemsexpectustolearnnewtechnologieswithoutformaltraining 1 2 3 4 5Thereistoomuchtechnologicalchangecomingtoofastwithoutenoughsupportforteachers 1 2 3 4 5Technologyisagoodtoolforcollaborationwithotherteacherswhenbuildingunitplans 1 2 3 4 5Technologyisunreliable 1 2 3 4 5
3.13 Pleaseindicatetheextenttowhichyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatementsastheyrelatetotheprofessionaldevelopmentineducationaltechnologythatyoutookduringthelast12months.ResponseLegend:1=StronglyDisagree2=Somewhatdisagree3=NeitherDisagreeorAgree4=Agree5=StronglyAgreeItmetmygoalsandneeds 1 2 3 4 5 N/AItsupportedthegoalsandstandardsofmystate,districtandschool. 1 2 3 4 5 N/AItappliedtotechnologyavailableinmyschool 1 2 3 4 5 N/AItwasavailableatconvenienttimesandplaces 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
SectionFour:Preparation/AreasofImprovement/TechnicalNeeds4.1 INeed...
ResponseLegend:1=LessUrgent2=SomewhatUrgent3=Urgent4=MoreUrgent5=ExtremelyUrgentMoretimetolearntouseapplications 1 2 3 4 5Moretimetointegratetechnologyintomycurriculum 1 2 3 4 5Moretrainingtousetechnology 1 2 3 4 5Moresupportfromadministrationwhenitcomestomytechnologyneeds 1 2 3 4 5Moretechnicalsupporttokeepcomputersandapplicationsrunning 1 2 3 4 5Moreaccesstotechnologytoolstointegrateinmyclassroominstruction 1 2 3 4 5
61
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Fasteraccesstotheinternet 1 2 3 4 5Moreopportunitiestocollaboratewithcolleaguesonhowtousetechnology 1 2 3 4 5Moreoptionsforprofessionaldevelopmentintheareasoftechnology 1 2 3 4 5HelpaligningtheintegrationoftechnologywiththeimplementationofCommonCoreStateStandards 1 2 3 4 5
4.2 Towhatextenthaseachofthefollowingpreparedyoutomakeeffectiveuseofeducationaltechnologyforinstruction?ResponseLegend:1=NotApplicable2=Notatall3=MinorExtent4=Moderateextent5=MajorExtentUndergraduateteachereducationprogram 1 2 3 4 5Graduateteachereducationprogram 1 2 3 4 5Professionaldevelopmentactivities 1 2 3 4 5Trainingprovidedbystaffresponsiblefortechnologysupportand/orintegrationatyourschool 1 2 3 4 5Independentlearning 1 2 3 4 5
4.3 Doyoueverfeelrestrictedwhentryingtoutilizetechnologyinyourclassroombecauseofthelackofresources?o Yeso Noo NotApplicableo Other
4.4 IfyouansweredYESabove,whatfactorscontributedtothis?
Lackofbandwidth Hardwarenotfunctioning Blockedcontent Limitednumberofdevices Lackoftraining(professionaldevelopment) Lackoftechnicalsupport N/A(Answered"No"above) Other
SectionFive:AssistiveTechnology5.1 Pleasereadthefollowingtextandrespondtothefollowingstatementsbelow.
AccordingtotheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationActof2004,theterm`assistivetechnologydevice'(AT)meansanyitem,pieceofequipment,orproductsystem,whetheracquiredcommerciallyofftheshelf,modified,orcustomized,thatisusedtoincrease,maintain,orimprovefunctionalcapabilitiesofachildwithadisability.Onascaleof1to5,with1indicatingstrongdisagreementand5indicatingstrongagreement,ratethefollowing:ResponseLegend:=1=StronglyDisagree2=Disagree3=NeitherDisagreeorAgree4=Agree5=StronglyAgree Atmyschool,proceduresforallaspectsofAssistiveTechnologyassessment,provisionandsupportareclearlydefinedandconsistentlyapplied. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
62
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
PeoplewithappropriateAssistiveTechnologyexpertiseareavailabletosupporttheteam’sdeliberationsaboutAssistiveTechnology. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Atmyschool,AssistiveTechnologyassessmentsincludeafunctionalassessmentinthestudent’scustomaryenvironments,suchastheclassroom,lunchroom,playgrounds,home,communitysetting,orworkplace. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Atmyschool,AssistiveTechnologyassessments,includingneededtrials,arecompletedwithinreasonabletimelines. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Atmyschool,recommendationsfromAssistiveTechnologyassessmentsarebasedondataaboutthestudent,environmentsandtasks. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Atmyschool,theassessmentprovidestheIEPteamwithclearlydocumentedrecommendationsthatguidedecisionsabouttheselection,acquisition,anduseofAssistiveTechnologydevicesandservices. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Atmyschool,AssistiveTechnologyneedsarereassessedanytimechangesinthestudent,theenvironmentsand/orthetasksresultinthestudent’sneedsnotbeingmetwithcurrentdevicesand/orservices. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Atmyschool,theIEPillustratesthatAssistiveTechnologyisatooltosupportachievementofgoalsandprogressinthegeneralcurriculumbyestablishingaclearrelationshipbetweenstudentneeds,AssistiveTechnologydevicesandservices,andthestudent’sgoalsandobjectives. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Atmyschool,transitionplansaddressAssistiveTechnologyneedsofthestudent,includingrolesandtrainingneedsofteammembers,subsequentstepsinAssistiveTechnologyuse,andfollow‐upaftertransitiontakesplace. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Professionaldevelopmenthasadequatelypreparedmeformyroleinassessingstudents’AssistiveTechnologyneedsandsupportingtheuseofAssistiveTechnologyonanongoingbasis. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
TheAssistiveTechnology–relatedneedsofmystudentsarebeingmet. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
ThepoliciesofmydistrictareclearrelativetotheprovisionofAssistiveTechnology. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Mydistrict’sAssistiveTechnology‐relatedpoliciesareresponsivetostudentneeds. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
AssistiveTechnologyisalwaysconsideredwhenIEPsaredeveloped. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
SectionSix:YourThoughts...6.1 Whattechnologyresource(s)canyousharewithotherDelawareeducatorsthatyou
havefoundtobemostbeneficialforyouandyourstudentsinteachingandlearning?6.2 Anythingyouwouldliketosharethatwemighthavemissed?
63
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Appendix C: Infrastructure Survey
1. District/Charter(LocalEducationAgency(LEA)):_______2. DoesyourLEAhaveanymajortechnologyinitiativesintheplanningorimplementation
stagesthatmayrequireadditionalbandwidth?Ifso,brieflydescribeinitiative(s)includingwhetheryouhaveincludedfundingforbandwidthincreasesinyourplanning/budgeting?o Yes
a. IfYes,__________________o No
3. HowmanyITsupportpositionFTEsdoesyourLEAuse?o 1o 2o 3o 4o 5o 6o 7o 8o 9o 10ormore
4. WhatfundingsourcesareusedforITsupportpositionsinyourLEA?(Checkallthat
apply) Federal State Local
5. WhatunitsareusedforITsupportpositionsinyourLEA?(Checkallthatapply) AcademicExcellence Custodial Director Paraprofessional Secretarial Supervisor Teacher Other____________
6. DoesyourLEAcurrentlycurtailInternetaccess(blockaboveandbeyondCIPA
compliance)tocontrolbandwidth?o Yeso No
64
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
7. Whatbrand(s)ofwirelessdoesyourLEAuse(checkallthatapply)?
Aerohive Aruba Cisco Meraki Meru Ruckus Other______________
8. WhatpercentofthedevicesinyourLEAconnectviawireless?
o 0%‐10%o 11%‐25%o 26%‐50%o 51%‐75%o 75%‐100%
9. Sincee‐ratemodernizationemphasizeswirelessaccessintheclassroom,wouldyour
LEAconsiderparticipatinginastatewideRFPandassociatedawardwiththeintentofreducingcostsofwirelessaccessinyourschool(s)?
o Yeso No
10. Doyouwanttoallow,forthepurposeofBYOD,studentsand/orstafftoconnect
personaldevicestoyournetwork?Y/No Yeso No
11. InadditiontotheAcceptableUsePolicy,doesyourLEAhaveaCyberSecurityPolicythataddressesBYODandwirelessinitiatives?o Yeso No
12. What,ifany,cloudcomputingisyourLEAusingorconsidering?Pleasedescribe.
______________
13. DidyourLEAapplyfore‐rateCategory2servicesinthefirstyear(July1,2015–June30,2016)ofe‐ratemodernization?o Yeso No
65
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
14. HowisyourLEAusingorplanningtousetheFederale‐ratemodernizationfunding($150perstudentperschoolover5years)overthenext4years(weareapproachingtheyear2applicationwindow)?(CheckallthatApply) InternalConnections
routers switches wirelessaccesspoints internalcabling racks wirelesscontrollersystems firewallservices uninterruptablepowersupply cachingfunctionality softwaresupportinginternalconnectioncomponents
BasicMaintenance ManagedInternalBroadbandServices(ManagedWi‐Fi) Notplanningtouse
15. WouldyourLEAbewillingtoallocateaportionofFederale‐ratemodernizationfunding
forinfrastructureupgrades,i.e.,switches,internalfiberruns,associatedwithbandwidthincreases?o Yeso No
16. Whatpercentageofyourstudentshaveaccesstobroadbandservicesathome?o 0%‐10%o 11%‐25%o 26%‐50%o 51%‐75%o 75%‐100%
66
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Appendix D: Annual Delaware School Technology Survey
67
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Appendix E: Educational Technology Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations
Goal 1 – Leadership ThestatewillhaveanoversightorganizationtoprovidestrategicguidanceforeducationaltechnologyforthestateandLEAs.
Strategies 1. FormtheCouncilonEducationalTechnologywiththefollowingresponsibilities:
a. NeedsAssessment–Establishaprocessforidentifyingongoingtechnologyandhumanresourceneedsattheclassroom,campus,districtandstatelevels,includingatechnologyinventory.
b. Policy–Basedupontheneedsassessmentandotherconsiderations,recommendpolicyannually.
c. Budget–Recommendabudgetforstatewideeducationaltechnologyexpendituresannually.
d. Planning–Developongoing(three‐year)strategicplansforthestatethat“mesh”withotherplanningeffortsattheDepartmentofEducation(DDOE),theDepartmentofTechnologyandInformation(DTI),andotheragenciesanddevelopaframeworkandprocessforlocalplanningthatcoordinateswithotherplansatthelocallevelaswellasthestatestrategicplan.
e. SafetyandSecurity–Defineastatewideacceptableusepolicyandproceduresandaprocesstoensurealleducatorsandstudentsagreetothepolicy;ensureallLEAsarecompliantwiththefederalregulationsincludingtheChildren’sInternetProtectionAct(CIPA),Children'sOnlinePrivacyProtectionAct(COPPA),andFamilyEducationalRightsandPrivacyAct(FERPA).
f. Procurement–WorkcloselywiththeGovernmentSupportServicestoestablishafocalpointwithineducationforthepreparationoftechnology‐relatedRFPs,vendornegotiations,andsitelicensesforsoftwarespecifictoeducationtooptimizecoststhroughconsolidatingdemand.
Recommendation1.1.1: PresentLegislationtoformtheCouncilonEducationalTechnologythatwillbesupportedwithstafffromtheDDOEandDTI.TheCouncilshouldmeetquarterlyandhavenomorethan15memberscomprisedofstakeholderrepresentativesfromacrossthestate.
Goal 2 – Broadband and Support ThestatewidenetworkcorethatprovidesandsupportsbroadbandaccessandinternalnetworkstoallDelawarepublicschoolswillbemaintainedandgrownbyprovidingcontinuousimprovementandexpansionoftheinfrastructuretomeettheneedsoftheeducationcommunity.
Strategies 1. Providethenecessaryresourcestoensurethatthenetworkcore,broadbandaccess,
Internetaccess,andassociatedservicesprovidedbytheDepartmentofTechnologyandInformationcontinuallyalignwiththeStateEducationalTechnologyDirectors
68
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Association(SETDA)recommendationsfromTheBroadbandImperativethatareincorporatedintotheFederalCommunicationsCommission(FCC)E‐ratemodernizationorderasagoal.
Recommendation2.1.1: Ensureallelementaryschoolshavesufficientresourcestosupportacapacityof100Mbpsbandwidthandallmiddleandhighschoolshavesufficientresourcesfor1Gbps(1,000Mbps)forthe2016‐2017schoolyearaswellasassociatedincreasesatthenetworkcoretosupportthebandwidthincrease.
Recommendation2.1.2: InFY18,providesufficientresourcestoincreasebandwidthinallschoolsto1Gbps(1,000Mbps)toaligntotheSETDA/FCCguidelinesforthe2017‐2018schoolyear.
Recommendation2.1.3: BeginninginFY19,DTIandDDOEwillconductanannualevaluationofbandwidthrequirementsbyschoolandbandwidthadjustedtoensurealignmentwithSETDAandFCCguidelines.
2. Ensureadequateresourcessothatinternalschoolnetworks,includingwirelessaccess,haveareplacementcycleof5–7yearsthattakesadvantageofthefundingcycleofCategory2oftheE‐ratemodernizationorder.
Recommendation2.2.1: ProvidesufficientresourcesfromthestatetoensureallLEAsareabletotakemaximumadvantageofCategory2oftheE‐rate.
Recommendation2.2.2: ExplorethepossibilityofworkingwiththePublicServiceCommissionandtheLegislaturetoestablishaDelawareUniversalServicesFundforE‐rate,notunliketheDelawareBroadbandFund.
3. EnsurethatLEAshaveadequateresourcesandtrainedpersonneltosupportandmaintaintheirdevices,internalnetworksandbroadbandcomingintotheschools.
Recommendation2.3.1: Asthestateprovidesflexibilityinfundingstreams,theLEAsneedtodeterminesufficienttechnologystaffingtosupportthenetworksanddevicesintheLEA,withaninitialtargetofoneFTEper500devices.
4. Enterintopartnershipswithtelecommunicationsproviders,carriersandappropriateagenciesofthestatetoensureeverypartofthestatehassufficientbroadbandtosupportstudentsathome.
Recommendation2.4.1: EncouragetheCouncilonEducationalTechnologytoformaworkinggrouptofurtherdelveintothebestpathforwardtoensurerobustbroadbandconnectivityinthecommunityandhomes.
Goal 3 – Computing Devices Bythe2019‐2020schoolyear,allstudentswillhaveaccesstoacomputingdeviceatschoolandathome,toenhancelearningandprovidethemwithtechnologyskillsandsavvy.
69
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Strategies 1. Negotiateastatecontractwithvolumepurchasingpowerformultipletypesofdevices
thatdistrictscanaccess.Thecontractshouldincludeoptionsforprofessionallearning,technologysupport,andprovisionsforfullaccessibilityforthebenefitofallstudentsandeducatorswithdisabilities.
Recommendation3.1.1: FormanRFPcommitteeconsistingofrepresentativesfromDTI,DDOEandtheLEAstodeterminethecriteriaforanRFPandissueanRFPthatwillbeawardedbyspring2017.
Goal 4 – Teacher Preparation By2020,allstudentsgraduatingteacherpreparationprogramsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinusingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheISTEStandardsforTeachers.
Strategies 1. Ensureteacherpreparationprogramspreparestudentsenteringtheteaching
professionwiththenecessaryskillstoeffectivelyintegratetechnologyintostudents’learningexperiencesandofferadvanceddegrees/certificatesforpracticingteachers.
Recommendation4.1.1: TheDelawareProfessionalStandardsBoardintandemwiththeStateBoardofEducationshouldconsideradoptingeitheracreditminimumorcompetencybasedrequirementaroundtheintegrationoftechnologyintolearningforteachercandidatesseekinganinitiallicense.
Recommendation4.1.2: TeacherPreparationprogramsshouldbeencouragedtoofferadvanceddegreesorcertificatesonteachingandlearningwithtechnologyandblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstructionforpracticingeducators.
Goal 5 – Professional Learning PracticingeducatorsinDelawarewillbeconfidentandeffectiveinintegratingtechnologytoenhancestudents’learningexperiencesasillustratedbytheInterstateTeacherAssessmentandSupportConsortium(InTASC)andtheISTEStandardsforTeachersandconsistentwithPSBRegulations1598and1599andfollowing.
Strategies 1. AdoptandimplementtheInternationalSocietyforTechnologyinEducation(ISTE)
standardsforstudentsandcoaches.
Recommendation5.1.1: TheDelawareProfessionalStandardsBoardandtheStateBoardofEducationshouldexpandRegulation1599beyondstandardsforteachersandadministratorsbyadoptingtheISTEStandardsforStudentsandISTEStandardsforCoaches.
2. EstablishanLEADigitalLearningCoachpositiontosupporteducatorsineffectivelyimplementingdigitallearningtofulfilltheISTEstandards.
70
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Recommendation5.2.1: EnsureLEAshavesufficientresourcestosupportaminimumofonedigitallearningcoachperLEAandforlargerLEAs,sufficientdigitallearningcoachestoaddresstheneedsandvisionoftheLEA.
3. Provideonlinepersonalizedprofessionallearning,research,andcollaborationopportunitiesforeducatorsthataretiedtopracticeandalignedtoISTEstandardsthroughanonlinevirtualnetwork.
Recommendation5.3.1: Provideonlinepersonalizedprofessionallearning,research,andcollaborationopportunitiesforeducatorsthataretiedtopracticeandalignedtoISTEstandardsthroughanonlinevirtualnetwork.
4. Establishandmaintaina“LeadingintheDigitalAge”on‐going,sustained,professionallearningprogramforteacherleaders,principals,superintendents,andothereducationleaders.
Recommendation5.4.1: Establishandmaintaina“LeadingintheDigitalAge”on‐going,sustained,professionallearningprogramforteacherleaders,principals,superintendents,andothereducationleaders.
Goal 6 – Blended Learning to Personalize Instruction Studentsandeducatorswillhaveaccesstoastatewideonlinevirtualnetworkthatwillincludedigitalresourcesanddataanalysiscapabilitiestodeliverblendedlearningtopersonalizeinstructionforstudents.
Strategies 1. ProvideLEAswiththeopportunitytopurchaselicensesatalowcostforastatewide
learningmanagementsystemforusewithK‐12studentsthatisintegratedwiththestatewidepupilaccountingsystem.
Recommendation6.1.1: Maintainastatewidecontractforalearningmanagementsystemandensureaperstudentcost‐sharebetweentheDepartmentofEducationandtheLEAs.
2. Establisharepositoryaspartofthestatewideonlinevirtualnetworkwithprocessestodevelop,manageandassessinstructionalresources,includingOpenEducationalResourcesandexpandcurrentinitiativestoincludecurriculumsubscriptions.
Recommendation6.2.1: Provideresourcesandpersonnelsufficienttobuildandsupportastatewiderepositoryforinstructionalresources.
3. Provideresourcesandprofessionallearningsothatbythe2019‐2020schoolyear,themajorityofresourcesusedinDelawaregrades3–12classroomsaredigitalandareaccessibleforallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilitieswhomayuseassistivetechnologiestoaccesstheirlearningmaterials.
Recommendation6.3.1: ConductadetailedanalysisofDelawarecode,regulations,andpoliciestoensuretherearenobarrierstopurchasingdigitalresourceswithexistingfundingstreamsfortextbooksandinstructionalmaterials.
71
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Recommendation6.3.2: Providesufficientresourcesandprofessionallearningsothatbythe2019‐2020schoolyear,themajorityofresourcesprocuredandusedinDelawaregrades3–12classroomsaredigitalandfullyaccessible.
Goal 7 ‐ Assistive Technology: Students Ensureallstudents,includingstudentswithdisabilities,willhaveaccesstotechnologythatwillhelpthemlearnandachieve.
1. Createandadoptuniformguidanceaddressingassistivetechnologyconsideration,accessandsupportforchildrenwithdisabilitiesagesbirththrough3.
Recommendation7.1.1: DevelopandpromulgateDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelinesthatspecifyexpectationsregardingtheprocessesbywhichassistivetechnologyisconsidered,assistivetechnologyneedsareevaluated,assistivetechnologyisacquiredandcustomized,andchildrenandfamiliesaresupportedinusingATtoenhanceaccesstoandparticipationinroutinesandactivities.
2. Createandadoptuniformguidanceaddressingassistivetechnologyconsideration,accessandsupportforpreschool,elementary,andsecondarystudentswithdisabilities,ages3through21.
Recommendation7.2.1: DevelopandpromulgateDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelinesthatspecifyexpectationsregardingtheprocessesbywhichassistivetechnologyisconsidered,assistivetechnologyneedsareevaluated,assistivetechnologyisacquiredandcustomized,andstudentsaresupportedinusingassistivetechnologytolearn,demonstratetheirabilities,andtransitionsuccessfullyintoadultlife.
Recommendation7.2.2: Developandpromulgateguidancethatspecifiesexpectationsregardingtheprocurementofaccessibleeducationaltechnologyandtheprocessesforensuringcompatibilityamonginfrastructure,hardware,andsoftwaresothatstudentswithdisabilitieshavecontemporaneousaccesstothesamelearningopportunitiesastheirpeerswithoutdisabilities.
3. EstablishacentralizedfundtoassistearlyinterventionprovidersandLEAsinacquiringtheassistivetechnologydeterminedbyteamstobenecessaryforchildrenwithdisabilitiestobenefitfromearlyinterventionoreducationalservices.
Recommendation7.3.1: Clarify,viatheDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelines,therangeofpossiblesourcessupportingATacquisitionandthemechanismsforaccessingthosesources,andestablishacentralizedfundtoassistintheacquisitionofassistivetechnology,includingguidelinesforutilizationofthefundthatreflectthenecessityofstudent‐specificassistivetechnologyselectionandanexpectationofsharedstate/localobligation.
72
Report of the Task Force on State Educational Technology March 30, 2016
Recommendation7.3.2: SupporttheFY18assistivetechnologybudgetrequestintheworkfromtheDepartmentofEducation’scomprehensivereviewofthedeliveryofspecialeducationservices,includingassistivetechnology,authorizedbySection307oftheFY2015budgetepilogue.
Goal 8 ‐ Assistive Technology: Educators Alleducatorswillhavesufficientknowledge,skills,anddispositions—aswellasaccesstoconsistentandpredictableacquisitionmechanisms—toensurethatstudentswithdisabilitieshaveaccesstotheATneededforengagement,learningandskilldemonstration.
Strategies 1. CreatecompaniondocumentstotheIndividualizedEducationPlan(IEP)and
IndividualizedFamilyServicePlan(IFSP)thatpromptteamstoengageinassistivetechnologyconsiderationanddocumentationconsistentwithfederallawandDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidancedocuments.
Recommendation8.1.1: DevelopandembedelectronicassistivetechnologytemplatesthatcanbeusedandappendedtohardcopiesoftheIEP/IFSP.
2. Createanddelivercomprehensiveprofessionaldevelopmenttoensurethatall
educatorsactincompliancewithfederallawandtheDelawareAssistiveTechnologyGuidelines.
Recommendation8.2.1: Createonlineandface‐to‐faceprofessionallearningopportunitiesforallmembersofachild’sIEP/IFSPteam.Thecontentshouldbedifferentiatedforarangeofaudienceswhoneedvaryingdegreesofdetail,andtherewillalsobeanoverviewdevelopedforfamiliesandstudents.
3. Establishcompetenciesforthoseservinginassistivetechnologyleadershiprolestoensurethatallteamshaveaccesstoadequateassistivetechnologyexpertise.
Recommendation8.3.1: Devisecompetenciesforthoseservinginassistivetechnologyleadershiprolesintheearlyinterventionandeducationalcontexts.Thecompetenciesshouldreferencehigh‐qualityeducationalpractices,expertiseinconsultationandfacilitationofteamprocesses,andtheexpectationthatthoseinATleadershiproleswillhavethedispositions,breadthofknowledge,anddepthofskilltosupportthefullrangeofATneededbystudents.
Top Related