All districts are asked to complete the following SmartForms on-line in June 2000:

1. Baseline Data Form for Local Technology Plan

2. District Technology Profile

3. Individual School Technology Profile

This year any district that completes the above forms will be eligible for technology grants and E-rate discounts. Data from these SmartForms will provide the baseline data for tracking a district's progress over the next three years. Districts can use the baseline data, collected in the spring of 2000, to formulate or fine-tune their Local Technology Plans. In the spring of 2001 there will be a more interactive user interface which will enable the Department to review district's data. Districts that are not making progress toward the Year 2003 benchmark standards will be flagged for review.

SPS has been completing SmartForms for the past three years. We do have an approved technology plan for the district. Click here to review the plan- Tech Plan

Benchmark Standard 1: Commitment to a clear vision and mission statement

A. The district has a realistic and clearly stated set of goals. It is committed to achieving its vision by the target year 2003.

A Local Technology Plan helps districts identify resources and strategies that will ensure the most effective use of technology in its schools. The actual Local Technology Plan (LTP) is a document that a district develops and maintains at the district level. The DOE will not review that document unless data submitted on the Baseline Data Form (which is updated each year) show that the district is not making progress toward meeting the Year 2003 benchmark standards.

All districts are expected to submit their final data for the 1999-2000 school year on-line to the DOE in June 2000 on the Baseline Data Form. Most of the questions on this form will be similar to the Tech Plan Update that you have been completing for the past two years. In addition, it will include the questions about technology expenditures that, in previous years, were included in your year-end report submitted to the Department together with all your other financial reports (in paper form). This year’s data will serve as a baseline for districts in writing or revising their LTPs.

Our Mission/Vision statement can be seen on the Tech Plan. We do have competencies for staff and students that revolve around improving teaching and learning through the integration of technology

B. The district has a technology team.

Participants on a technology team could include: teachers (both general and special), curriculum coordinators, instructional technology specialists, network specialists, administrators, parents, library media specialists, parents, and community representatives, among others.

The team in listed on the Tech Plan. Members changes as people move in and out of district.

C. The district has a budget for its technology plan. The district’s operational budget includes a line item for technology.

Because there are so many variables at work, it is difficult to say how much a district should be spending on technology. During the 1998-1999 school year, approximately 26% of districts spent over $250 per student.

A 1995 study by Kinsey and Co., Inc. calculated the cost per student of implementing a classroom model in which every classroom is connected with networked computers at a ratio of 5:1, with a T-1 connection, to be $965 per student initially and $275/year per student over ten years. Another estimate calculated in 1998 by Integrated Technology Group, LLC, projects that the total cost of a technology program will run above $500 per student per year for the first five years (taking into account everything from personnel, training, curriculum development, hardware, software, infrastructure improvements, etc.) Both of these studies were cited in Consortium for School Networking. June, 1999. Taking TCO to the Classroom.

Budgets should also reflect a line item for equipment and software that facilitate access to technology for students and staff with disabilities. (Examples include: variable height furniture, alternative keyboards, alternative mouse, large screen monitor, Braille printer, closed captioned TV, voice recognition software, and screen readers).

SPS maintains a K12 budget specifically for technology equipment, supplies and support. Also, building principals have a history of supporting additional technology purchases from limited site based funds.

D. The district leverages the use of state and federal resources (e.g. E-Rate, TLCF grants, MassEd.Net, ETIS).

The Department is committed to working with districts that are having trouble funding their technology plans. By making effective use of statewide programs such as ETIS, TLCF, student tech support (SaTL and YTE), MCN, etc. these school districts should be able to meet the benchmark standards by the year 2003. Additional programs, for example, those that provide refurbished computers or remote support, should also be considered. [links to subsites?]

The state distributes approximately $7.5 million as sub-grants to schools each year. We are required by federal regulations to distribute the funds through a competitive process. Therefore, we focus the grant funds on catalyzing change (integrating technology into the curriculum for increased student learning) rather than supporting operations. If the funded projects effect positive change, it is up to school districts to recognize the need for continued support of these projects in their yearly budgets. It is important that the district view grant funds as seed money and to make a long-term commitment to supporting its technology plan out of the district operating budget.

SPS participates in the E-Rate program as well as State DOE Grants. We do not however participate in the high speed internet access plan as our fees through Shrewsbury Electric Light and Cable are far less expensive for our district

Benchmark Standard 3: Infrastructure for Connectivity

The district ensures that every classroom and every administrative office has at least one computer with a high-speed connection to the Internet by the year 2003. A building's electrical service must be sufficient to support the computers and networks installed.

Since 1994 the federal government has been working toward a goal of every school and classroom connected to the Internet by the year 2000. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 1999, 63% of public school classrooms were connected to the Internet. In 1999, 63% of public schools were using high-speed connections (a dedicated line).

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999017.html

Data collected in Massachusetts on the school profiles in June and October 1999 revealed that 69.2% of classrooms (statewide average) have some type of access to the Internet. Approximately 41% of districts reported that all of their classrooms are connected to the Internet. (The data have not been analyzed to show the type of connections.)

Currently a "high-speed connection" is defined, for the purposes of our benchmark standards, as 56K or faster. However, in 2003 a 56K modem may no longer be considered a high-speed connection to the Internet. Just as the workstation types that qualify for the 5:1 student-to-computer ratio will change each year to accommodate new technologies, we can expect that the type of Internet connection that qualifies for this benchmark standard will change as well.

Many districts that have wired their classrooms for Internet access have provided for, not one connection in the classroom, but numerous connections (more in keeping with the ratio of 5 students per Internet-connected computer). The benchmark standard of one connection per classroom is believed by many to be inadequate if Internet-based activities are to have an impact on learning. The benchmark standard is a goal only for those districts that have not yet provided Internet access in every classroom. If a district is planning to wire a building, it should consider multiple active drops in each classroom, as well as the necessary upgrades in electrical service.

If, in its local technology plan, a district envisions that the Internet will play an important role in teaching and learning, then careful infrastructure planning is in order.

SPS is in excellent shape on this benchmark. We are at 100% internet connectivity in all of our instructional spaces. We work closely with Bob Cox and the buildings department to improve electrical services as needed.

In March 01, the School Dept., Town and Light Dept have agreed to upgrade the town network from a 10 mg shared to a gigabyte segmented system. The proof of concept will take place in the spring, with an implementation date of Aug 01. The school will budget the replacement of the site based switches at each school over the next two years.

Benchmark Standard 4: Technical Support, Training and Technology Curriculum Integration

A. TECH SUPPORT: The district ensures that every administrator, teacher, and student receives high-quality user and system support so that by the year 2003 there will be at least one FTE (full-time equivalent) person to support 100-200 computers. Technical support can be provided by dedicated staff or equivalent services.

This benchmark standard was calculated based on the needs of an average school with approximately 600 students, 30-60 staff and 100-200 computers. However, school systems are diverse and there are many different variables at work in schools within a district: size of school, age of equipment, mix of computer platforms, level of expertise among teachers, and grade levels served, to name a few. The needs for uninterrupted access to the Internet and equipment is much greater in a high school than in an elementary school, although they all need a basic level of support. The benchmark standard represents an average across a district.

As one technology coordinator in our working group pointed out, if a district has a 5:1 student-to-computer ratio, but only enough tech support to keep the computers running 80% of the time, the effective ratio becomes 6.25:1. Districts should provide adequate technical support to maintain the 5:1 ratio at all times.

A number of studies cited in the 1999 report by Consortium for School Networking (Taking TCO to the Classroom) found that in a business environment, a full-time computer support person is provided for every 50-75 users. While it may be unreasonable to expect schools to achieve the same level of support as businesses require, there is widespread consensus among educators that there is not enough tech support in the schools. A statewide average of 1.5 FTE for network/technical support per district was reported on the most recent tech plan updates. (The data have not been analyzed to show FTE per 100-200 computers.)

"Equivalent services" can be provided by volunteers or paid students. For information on programs that many schools are adopting, in which students are trained as technology leaders, visit the Website of Youth Tech Entrepreneurs (YTE) http://www.yte.org.

Currently we have 3 staff fully assigned to technical support. DOE allows "equivalent services", we interpret that to be our contractual agreement with a vendor who provided on-site support twice weekly as well as high school students, industry and community volunteers.

B. CURRICULUM INTEGRATION SUPPORT: The district provides at least 0.5 FTE staff person to support every 30-60 users (staff only) in their efforts to achieve technology competency and to integrate technology into the curriculum.

This may include: curriculum integration specialist, library/media specialist, and technology specialist, (as well as aides and tutors) who provide mentoring, coaching, model teaching and co-teaching. It does not include teachers who teach computer courses to students.

Again, this benchmark standard was based on an average size school. Actual needs will vary from distinct to district. The high end of the ratio, 0.5 FTE to 60 users, may only be adequate in districts with a large percentage of experienced users. On the other hand, a ratio of 0.5 FTE to 30 users may be too low for districts with a large number of new users.

This is the cornerstone of our vision with respect to the use of technology. The district maintains the full time equivalent of 5 staff exclusive of technology instructors for integration.

 C. The district has Acceptable Use Policy on the Internet

As in the past, districts will report information relating to safe Internet practices on the Baseline Data Form.

Our Acceptable Use Policy appears on the web as well as each student handbook. We are in the process of updating our AUP to reflect the changes in technology and the use of our network

D. TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: By the year 2003, at least 85% of district staff will have participated in technology training sponsored by the district.

In June 1999, districts reported that 60.8% of staff had participated in technology professional development activities during the school year, an increase of 14% from the previous year. That is a statewide average, with a number of districts having surpassed this goal. Statewide, districts spent an average of $188 per staff person during the 1998-1999 school year, up 36% from the previous year.

Although unlikely, it is possible that all staff in a district eventually become so fluent in technology that they require no further basic skills training. However, they will always benefit from activities that help them find ways to integrate new technology into the curriculum. Even with a well-trained staff, continued professional development will be crucial if technology is to enhance student learning. Numerous research studies back this:

The U.S. D.O.E.’s Office of Educational Technology is reviewing and revising the national educational technology plan. As part of this effort, a forum was held in December, 1999, where experts explored future roles and trends in educational technology. One of the priorities identified was that "all teachers will effectively use technology," The report, which emphasizes that the need for training is ongoing, can be found at:

http://www.air.org/forum/forum.htm

Another important source is Education Week's Technology Counts '99.

In past years, on the district technology plan smartform (now called "Baseline Data Collection Form") we have collected data on the formal professional development activities offered by districts. However, teachers have told us repeatedly that they learn most effectively when they share ideas and activities for using technology in their curriculum, or when a mentor is available to help them integrate technology into their classroom activities. The Department encourages this type of continuous support from mentors, teacher leaders, or coaches during the school day. In addition, teachers might sharpen their skills at home with self-paced courses provided by the district. Such informal training activities should be included in the district's technology training profile in the smartform. Because we are aware of the difficulty of counting staff hours for this type of professional development, we are asking districts to collect data on the percentage of staff reached by these types of informal training activities.

The Department of Education is collecting information only on a district's efforts to provide ongoing technology professional development to its staff. A district may want to conduct its own evaluation of the level of proficiency that teachers achieve.

SPS maintains an excellent professional development offerings. Our workshops address the needs of all our staff, from the basic to the advance skills offerings. We are moving towards an integrated approach partnering with curriculum rather than teach stand alone skill based workshops.

Standard 5: Accurate Data Reporting

The districts maintain accurate data that meet state IMS standards.

The districts report student and district data on the SIMS and DIMS smartforms.

This is a Central Office responsibility. We are already in compliance with this standard.

Standard 6: Access to the Internet outside the school day.

A. The district works with community groups to ensure that, by 2003, students and staff will have sufficient access to the Internet, which will enable them to work outside of the school day. The school must maintain a catalog of places in the community ("points of access") where students and staff can gain access to the Internet after school hours.

B. The district has an up-to-date Web site and every educator has an Internet account with the capability of sending e-mail and accessing the World Wide Web.

A priority of the U.S. Department of Education has been to close the digital divide. In a national effort to expand access it recently announced that $44 million in grants were awarded to organizations such as community centers, libraries and schools to create 214 Community Technology Centers. The centers will make computers and Internet access available to low-income residents in urban and rural communities.

http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/04-2000/0418.html

As a first step in addressing the digital divide in Massachusetts, the Baseline Data Form includes new questions to determine whether or not districts are making efforts to ensure that students have access to technology outside the school day.

Education Week's Technology Counts '99 reports that the percentage of schools where at least 50% of teachers have school-based e-mail addresses was 48% for Massachusetts respondents, as compared to 65% for the national sample.

In the Milken Exchange Survey of Technology in Schools (September 1999) the percentage of districts surveyed that report parents and teachers can communicate frequently via e-mail was 17% for Massachusetts respondents, as compared with 26% for the national sample.

To ensure access for all users, including those with disabilities, school web sites should be designed to meet the standards for accessibility.

Guidelines of the Web Accessibility Initiative can be found at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/

Another tool that will help determine accessibility of a web site is Bobby. Bobby is a web-based tool that analyzes web pages for their accessibility to people with disabilities. This tool can be found at: http://www.cast.org/bobby/

For the past 15 years the high school computer lab has been open from 7-9 PM on both Tuesday and Thursday Evenings. We also have a good relationship with our public library should consider that another access point.

We do maintain an up-to- date web page and have plans to improve the currency of material. As the Town develops the new Community Webpage the school information will be prominently displaced. Lastly we did run a bobby check on our webpages and have found that many pages are not as accessible as we would like, especially for text readers that the blind might use. We are determining the best method to resolve this conflict.