Digital Learning & Technology

Local technology planning and data collection

In 2010 the Department promulgated voluntary guidelines for long-range local technology plans through the 2014-15 school year. Through the 2013-14 school year districts were required to submit these plans to the Department for approval. Aside from their value locally, other incentives for districts to develop long-range local technology plans included eligibility for E-rate discounts and federal and state technology grants. In addition to the requirement to submit the actual plan, the Department also collected more fine-grained technology data from districts through the Security Portal. At the end of the 2010-11 school year, the data collection requirement shifted to the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) technology readiness tool (TRT) maintained by Pearson, Inc. As the name implied, the purpose of the TRT was to gauge readiness for online assessment by collecting information about the district's infrastructure and devices. The TRT was retired by Pearson in August 2014. In July 2014 the FCC issued the first of two orders to modernize the E-rate program. Among other changes, the order eliminated the requirement for districts to submit technology plans to state education agencies for approval in order to qualify for E-rate. The discontinuation of the TRT and the technology plan requirement, coupled with the increase in the E-rate funding cap authorized in the December 2014 order, presents opportunity to align planning and the local budget cycle, and collect information and data mutually beneficial to districts and the Department.

Data collection

We are in the process of identifying a new data collection tool. The ideal tool will:

Be compatible with existing asset tracking and inventory systems
Generate on-demand reports
Allow districts to compare their data with data from "comparable" school districts, similar to the state's District Analysis and Review Tools (DARTs) that exist presently in areas such as Success After High School and Staffing and Finance. As is the case with the current DART data, these data will help districts communicate information about their digital learning capacity and needs to school committees and other stakeholders.
Allow the Department to expand the technology data available on our School and District Profiles website, which has not been updated since 2010-11.
Allow districts and the Department to identify the infrastructure and digital learning needs of districts

Projected revisions to the voluntary guidance for long-range technology plans

We will update our voluntary guidance for long-range technology plans, which currently span the 2010-11 through the 2014-15 school years, to span the 2015-16 through the 2017-18 school years. This will bring the guidance into alignment with the State Educational Technology Directors Association's (SETDA) broadband targets for 2017-18 and to reflect new developments in digital learning. Many of these changes are previewed below. We are providing this information in advance of more formal guidance to ensure that districts do not lose momentum in their local technology planning.

If the district has a one-to-one or BYOD (bring-your-own-device) program in one or more schools, the policy must comply with Chapter 71, Section 48 as described in District obligation to provide instructional supplies, including tablets and computers.
The district must have a clear policy on personal use of devices, both on campus and off campus, which includes software installation, website access, and other uses. This includes ensuring parents understand their responsibility for the devices and its role in the educational process.
The district will be recommended to provide instruction on digital citizenship to students, and guidance on digital citizenship for educators. Topics should include but not be limited to the responsible use of social media. (More detailed information will be provided in the updated guidelines).
To the extent the district purchases devices for students, the plan should include the identification of reliable funding streams for lifecycle costs, address when devices will need to be replaced, and address how districts will replace them. For example, a district may incorporate lifecycle costs into the annual operating budget as opposed to relying upon one-time grants or capital expenditures. In some cases, this may require creating a new line item in the budget and treating device costs as the district would treat utility bills. Most districts replace devices every 3-4 years. This relatively fast cycle requires that teachers and support staff remain up to date on the latest technology and versions of software. Related to the lifecycle decision is whether extended warranties and insurance are required. Many manufacturers have limited warranties that do not cover the full lifecycle of the device, and repairs for out-of-warranty devices can be costly. Therefore, extended warranties and device insurance can help to mitigate these costs and should be considered. This is more specific than the existing language of "The district has a budget that will ensure the implementation of its long-range technology plan" although it was signaled on page 5 ("The district has established a computer replacement cycle of five years or less.") We will also be recommending that these devices meet, at a minimum, current specifications for online assessment.
School Internet connections should be scalable to SETDA's recommendation for Internet access for schools of at least 1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff (users). This is an increase from 100 Mbps as stated in B.2. District and school networks should be capable of providing a dedicated data service scalable to the SETDA wide/local area network (WAN/LAN) target of 10 Gbps per 1,000 students. This is also an increase from 100 Mbps as stated in B.2. Because the current bandwidth needs of districts will vary, districts will be recommended to ensure that upgrades are scalable to these targets in the future, as needed.
Although the general intent remains the same, districts should revise their Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) to reflect the principles of "Responsible Use Policies." A good summary of this shift, and what could be in this next generation of policies can be found at Moving From 'Acceptable' to 'Responsible' Use in a Web 2.0 World and Rethinking Acceptable Use Policies to Enable Digital Learning: A Guide for School Districts.
The guidelines speak to "Accessibility of Technology" (Benchmark 4 on page 4; specifically A.3 on page 5). It will be revised to reflect the requirement that all digital tools and content, including district, school, and teacher websites, meet Section 508 accessibility criteria for students with disabilities and recommend that all staff receive the appropriate level of training based on their position.
Guidance will be included regarding the fair use of licensed content and open educational resources (OER).

Last Updated: June 19, 2015