district digital classroom · pdf file1 . district . digital classroom plan . ... i.3...

1

DISTRICT

DIGITAL CLASSROOM PLAN Part I. DIGITAL CLASSROOMS PLAN - OVERVIEW As required by s. 1011.62(12)(g), F.S., this plan requests funding for devices needed to allow each school to administer the Florida Standards Assessment to an entire grade level simultaneously. It further documents the district's overall focus and direction with respect to improving student performance outcomes by incorporating and integrating technology into our instructional programs. I.1 District Team Profile

Title/Role Name: Email: Phone: Chief Academic Officer

Elizabeth Agresta [email protected] 813 272 -4221

Chief Business Officer

Gretchen Saunders [email protected] 813 272-4270

General Manager Technology

Dan Schultz [email protected] 813 272-4230

Instructional Technology, Manager

Sharon Zulli [email protected] 813 272-4294

Instructional Technology, Supervisor

Troy Suarez

[email protected] 813 272-4454

Professional Development, Supervisor

Angela Vickers [email protected] 813 840-7011

I.2 Planning Process

After the guidance was released for the Digital Classrooms Plan (DCP) in August 2016, a team of district stakeholders including, Teaching & Learning, Instructional Technology, Information Technology, Assessment, Professional Development, Exceptional Student Education, etc., was convened to generate ideas and priorities for submission. Focus groups were held with school instructional staff (including members from ESOL and ESE, as well as representation from all content areas), and site technology contacts to solicit their thoughts and ideas on digital learning and classroom digital needs. Meeting Dates Audience

8/01/2016 Leadership team 8/09/2016 Instructional Technology Staff

8/10/2016 Assessment 8/11/2016 District Instructional Staff

2

8/11/2016 Business Partners 8/15/2016 Senior Leadership Staff 8/17/2016 Infrastructure and Shared Services 8/22/2016 Instructional Technology Team revision

As a result of meetings with business partners concerning our 1:1 initiative, we were able to leverage experience with Microsoft, and UDT in developing the plan. After analyzing the data and in accordance with s. 1011.62(12)(g), F.S., which states priority should be given to funding devices needed to allow each school to administer the Florida Standards Assessment to an entire grade level simultaneously, senior staff selected device procurement for assessment as the plan for 2016 – 2017.

I.3 Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) – Summarize the process used to train, implement and measure classrooms using the TIM. Over the last 3 years, the TIM has become the de facto framework for defining and evaluating technology integration in our Project Innovate (explained later in this section) and 1:1 sites. In the first year of the Digital Classroom Plan and prior to Project Innovate, we selected 3 sites rich with technology to participate in Project Byte and complete extensive training in technology integration into student-centered instruction. These sites were trained in the “expert conversations” model that makes use of three TIM related tools; the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM), the Technology Uses and Perceptions Survey (TUPS), the Technology Integration Matrix Observation (TIMO) tool, as well as a site-based Implementation Plan in which each site defines their own Classroom Visitation and Professional Learning (PLC) cycles. After sites completed an initial Technology Uses and Perceptions Survey (TUPS) for baseline, a site Digital Leadership Teams (DLT's) was created and trained to identify 4-5 key indicators which could be targeted by the sites for growth throughout the span of the program. Once the targets were identified, the remainder of the staff were trained in the foundational and pedagogical aspects of the TIM. Faculty were invited to bring current lesson plans with them to assess their own teaching using the characteristics in the TIM and to learn how to differentiate between levels of technology integration, as well as maximize the characteristics of the learning environment as they relate to the goals of the lesson being delivered. Participants were then trained on the use of the Technology Integration Matrix Observation (TIMO) tool to support them in collecting data during classroom visitations and provide a catalyst for professional, supportive PLC discussions. Between and after classroom visitation cycles teachers were offered additional Lesson Plan Enhancement training opportunities for which they were asked to bring several lesson plans that they were currently using in their classroom. During Project Byte, DLTs and PLCs met frequently to discuss technology integration and student-centered instruction techniques. At the end of the program, the TUPS was administered again to examine the effectiveness of the program. At the conclusion of Project BYTE post conferences were held at each of the three sites. At these post conferences, site DLT's had the opportunity to review TIM-O visitation cycle data, discuss trends identified in TUPS (pre & post cycle) data and identify additional/external areas of growth associated with Project BYTE. While the results varied across the three sites, due in part to variations in implementation, several key findings were identified:

3

• Knowledge of the TIM (as a reflective tool) - Training the faculty to use the TIM led to teachers who were more comfortable reflecting on their own teaching practices, and with the tools/skill set to modify/improve upon them.

• Knowledge of the TIM (as a planning tool) - This knowledge enabled our teachers to reflect on their lesson planning which in turn, led to teachers preparing/modifying lessons (on supplied template) that were pedagogically sound, goal based, and focused on greater student engagement.

• TIM-Observations (Classroom Visitation Cycles) - Providing class coverage/substitutes enabled teachers to visit multiple classrooms during the day and watch their colleagues teach. Non-district TIM Experts guided these experiences using the TIM-O and during pre & post visitation conversations. Feedback collected (on supplied template) and anecdotal evidence (expressed by teachers) indicated that this part of the process was among the most appreciated parts of the project.

• Conducting PLC's (post visitation cycle) - Non-district TIM Experts were used to guide these experiences and provided insights garnered from working with teachers from other districts around the state. Their contributions to the visitation cycles and successive PLC's resulted in rich meaningful conversations between host teachers and their visiting/observing teacher/colleagues. In some cases, PLC's were conducted virtually in the Skype for Business/Adobe Connect environment.

• TUPS Data Review (pre & post) - Each site selected 4 Key Indicators on which to focus during the span of the project. At project completion, comparisons between pre & post survey data indicated several areas of growth (as anticipated) and other areas where little or no growth occurred (which was unexpected). This offered the opportunity for re-assessment of site based technology based teaching & learning goals, and offered the opportunity to re-develop Professional Development plans to address them.

Ongoing Professional Development - TIM reflections, PLC conversations, and TUPS & TIM-O data allowed site DLT's to determine if their professional development needs had been met (by the training embedded in the project) or as required attention (as a result of the project). From this, sites developed/enhanced their Professional Development plans (from a wide range of project related offerings) ultimately delivered by the Technology Training Team. This year, we have 2, not completely mutually exclusive, groups of schools that either have already been trained on the TIM or will be trained shortly. The first group includes 3 elementary schools participating in the TorchLight Project, which is a partnership with Promethean World and the University of South Florida College of Education. The aim of this project is to transform instruction through the use of Promethean smart panel technology. These sites underwent a full day training by Promethean both on the effective use of Promethean technology in the classroom and the use of the TIM to capture efficacy data on the project. As a grant funded project in conjunction with the USF College of Education, the TIM is the critical tool to gauge progress. Project Innovate is our district’s 1:1 initiative to transform teaching and learning through student-centered, technology rich instruction. Cohort 1 consists of 8 schools that were trained by an outside company throughout Spring 2015. Each school created their own plan for transforming instruction through technology. Digital Classroom Plan funds released during the first year were used to supply devices and professional development to these sites. We learned a lot from this first pilot group. The TIM was not used initially for the first year of this cohort’s administration, but will be rolled out for them this year.

4

Cohort 2 includes 18 sites that were extensively trained in house over the last year in various aspects of pedagogy and technology integration. Funds from last year’s Digital Classroom Plan were used to provide professional development for Cohort 2 and provide devices for each site. These sites will employ the TUPS as pre and post efficacy measures. This year, both cohorts including the administrators were offered training similar to that of project Byte described above. I.4 Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) –

1. The district uses a data-based problem-solving approach to integrate academics, technology and behavioral instruction and intervention for ALL students. The integrated instruction and intervention is delivered to students in varying intensities (multiple tiers) based on student need. Problem Solving at Tier 1 is conducted by the school’s Problem Solving Leadership Team (PSLT) which may include, but is not limited to: School/site Administrator(s), General Education Teacher(s), School Psychologist, School Social Worker, Guidance Counselor, ESE Specialist and/or other relevant personnel (i.e., Curriculum Specialist, Math Coach, Reading Coach, and Behavior Specialist). The PSLT at each school site will, on a regular basis, systematically review school-wide data utilizing the Tier 1 decision making form that incorporates the four-step problem solving process (1. Define the problem, 2. Analyze the problem, 3. Implement the intervention, 4. Evaluate response to intervention). During the problem solving meetings, teams determine the amount of resources needed to support students and teachers. At the beginning of the school year, student data is sorted to identify students in need of intervention support across each Tier and student groups are matched to intervention protocols based on skill deficits. Site-based resource maps are completed by the leadership team to ensure there are no gaps in resource materials needed across each tier. Computer Assisted Programs are integrated into the intervention delivery model at Tiers 1 and 2. Teacher directed intervention delivery occurs at Tier 3.

2. Hillsborough County Schools designed a district MTSS-RtI self-assessment rubric to assist district

leaders and school-based leadership teams with the implementation of MTSS-RtI across all tiers. The tool provides the means to reflect on implementation and practices at the school level in order to continually improve outcomes for ALL students. ALL schools are required to complete the rubric two times per year and serves as a guide for schools as they work toward accomplishing school improvement goals. The Rubric was developed based on the three tiered components of MTSS-RtI as defined by the Florida Department of Education and provides the district with an approach for measuring MTSS fidelity. Questions related to the use of technology in the classroom and the impact on student learning may be found throughout each tier of the MTSS-RtI Self-assessment rubric.

3. To support schools with data driven practices, the school district provides access to multiple data

management systems such Education Connection (Ed. Connect) and Instructional Planning Tool (IPT). Schools use these data management systems to access data across each tier for academics, behavior and attendance. In an effort to monitor student’s response to Tier 1 core instruction, problem solving leadership teams will analyze data, from Florida Standards Assessment (FSA), Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading- Florida Standards (FAIR-FS), District Formative Assessments, Stanford Achievement Test, Tenth Addition (SAT-10), Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) and Absences. Curriculum-based measures are administered to monitor students’ response to academic intervention at Tiers 2 and 3. EasyCBM is the data source that schools access to obtain graphed data for each student receiving academic interventions. For students receiving behavior Tier 2 or 3 interventions, the Response to Intervention for Behavior (RtI:B) database is used to graph data from daily behavior point cards and behavior contracts.

5

4. The school district has an MTSS-RtI department that organizes and support schools with the implementation of MTSS. All district personnel have access to online training modules, archived webinars and eight RtI Facilitators. One RtI facilitator is assigned to each of the district’s 8 area offices to ensure each school within the area receive professional development and ongoing coaching with data-based problem solving. School teams are trained on how to engage in the problem solving process to identify underlying causes for student concerns and to match instructional and intervention resources to students’ educational needs. School teams continue to engage in data review and use the 4 step- problem solving process to ensure that student success is being achieved and maintained through out the school year.

I.5 District Policy - The district should provide each of the policies listed below and include any additional digital technology relevant policy in the "other/open" category. If no district policy exists in a certain category, please use "N/A" to indicate that this policy is currently non-applicable. (This does not preclude the district from developing and including a relevant policy in the future.) These policy types are suggestions, please complete as they are available or add additional if necessary.

Type of Policy

Brief Summary of Policy

Web Address Date of Adoption

Student data safety, security and privacy

The Board recognizes the need to safeguard students' privacy and restrict access to students' personally identifiable information.

http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/policymanual/detail/355

4/1/2014 (revised)

District teacher evaluation components relating to technology (if applicable)

Component 1d of the classroom teacher evaluation instrument, “demonstrating knowledge of resources and technology,” stresses effective integration of technology in instruction and planning in order to enhance student learning.

http://communication.sdhc.k12.fl.us/EETHome/Rubrics/TeacherRubricfinal_8_2012.pdf

August 2010

BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) Policy

Students and staff may bring in personal communication devices and connect to a


2014

6

“guest” network.

Policy for refresh of devices (student and teachers)

Current procedure is to refresh staff devices every 6 years. There is no scheduled refresh for student devices.

n/a 1999

Acceptable/Responsible Use policy (student, teachers, admin)

Acceptable/Responsible Use policy (student, teachers, admin)

http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/policymanual/detail/345 http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/policymanual/detail/346

2016

Master Inservice Plan (MIP) technology components

Technology is addressed in Function 2 of the MIP and addresses 003 - Computer Topics, 408 - Instruction Strategies, 401 - Assessment/Student Appraisal, and 506 - General Support Topics.

http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/doc/1083 2014

Social Media Acceptable use of Social Media

http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/policymanual/detail/437 http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/policymanual/detail/436

2015





http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/doc/1083



7

Part II. DIGITAL CLASSROOMS PLAN –STRATEGY STEP 1 – Needs Analysis: Districts should evaluate current district needs based on student performance outcomes and other key measurable data elements for digital learning.

A) Student Performance Outcomes B) Digital Learning and Technology Infrastructure C) Professional Development D) Digital Tools E) Online Assessments

8

Highest Student Achievement

Student Performance Outcomes: Districts shall improve classroom teaching and learning to enable all students to be digital learners with access to digital tools and resources for the full integration of the Florida Standards.

A. Student Performance Outcomes

(Required)

Baseline Target

Date for Target to be

Achieved (Mo/Year)

II.A.1. ELA Student Achievement 51.1 % 52.1 % (6/2017) II.A.2. Math Student Achievement 53.1 % 54.1 % (6/2017) II.A.3.5 Science Student Achievement –

5th Grade 52.1 % 53.1 % (6/2017)

II.A.3.8 Science Student Achievement – 8th Grade

47.1 % 48.1 % (6/2017)

II.A.4. Science Student Achievement – Biology

58.1 % 59.1 % (6/2017)

II.A.5. ELA Learning Gains 50.1 % 51.1 % (6/2017) II.A.6. Math Learning Gains 52.1 % 53.1 % (6/2017) II.A.7. ELA Learning Gains of the Low

25% 39.1 % 40.1 % (6/2017)

II.A.8. Math Learning Gains of the Low 25%

38.1 % 39.1 % (6/2017)

II.A.9. Overall, 4-year Graduation Rate 76.1% 90 % (6/2020) II.A.10. Acceleration Success Rate 47.1 % 48.1 % (6/2017)

9

Quality Efficient Services

Technology Infrastructure: Districts shall create a digital learning infrastructure with the appropriate levels of bandwidth, devices, hardware and software. For the infrastructure needs analysis, the required data points can and should be pulled from the most recent Technology Resources Inventory (TRI). This information is used to compile data points for Legislative reporting purposes and should be accurate. The baseline should be carried forward from the 2014 plan and targets for full implementation should be identified as current year or extended

A. Infrastructure Needs Analysis (Required)

Baseline from 2014

Actual from Spring 2016

Target For

2020 School

Year

Date for Target to

be Achieved (Mo/Year)

Gap to be addressed

(Actual minus Target)

II.B.1. Student to Computer Device Ratio

___4:1__ ____2.82:1____ 1:1 8/ 2020 _____:_____

II.B.2. Count of student instructional desktop computers meeting specifications

52,206 50,027 50,000

9/2016 0

II.B.3. Count of student instructional mobile computers (laptops) meeting specifications

8,725 19,559 200,000 9/2020 180,000

II.B.4. Count of student web-thin client computers meeting specifications

0 0 0 n/a 0

II.B.5. Count of student large screen tablets meeting specifications

2170 1999 1999 2016 0

II.B.6. Percent of schools meeting recommended bandwidth standard

32.40% 38.22% 100% 2016 62%

II.B.7. Percent of wireless classrooms (802.11n or higher)

100 % 100 % 100% 9/2015 0

II.B.8. District completion and submission of security assessment *

Y Y Y N/A N/A

10

* Districts will complete the security assessment provided by the FDOE. However, under s. 119.07(1) this risk assessment is confidential and exempt from public records.

11

Skilled Workforce and Economic Development

Professional Development: Instructional personnel and staff shall have access to opportunities and training to assist with the integration of technology into classroom teaching.

Professional Development should be evaluated based on the level of current technology integration by teachers into classrooms. This will measure the impact of the professional development for digital learning into the classrooms. The Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) can be found at: http://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix.php. Average integration should be recorded as the percent of teachers at each of the five categories of the TIM for the levels of technology integration into the classroom curriculum:

• Entry • Adoption • Adaptation • Infusion • Transformation

B. Professional Development

Needs Analysis (Required)

Baseline (established in

2016) Target

Date for Target to be Achieved

(Mo/Year) II.C.1. Average teacher

technology integration via the TIM (based on peer and/or administrator observations and/or evaluations)

Entry:10 % Adoption:20 % Adaption:30 % Infusion:30 % Transform:10 %

Entry: 5% Adoption: 10% Adaption: 30% Infusion: 35% Transform:20%

6/2017

II.C.2. Percentage of total evaluated teacher lessons plans at each level of the TIM

Entry:10 % Adoption: 20% Adaption:30 % Infusion:30 % Transform: 10%

Entry: 5% Adoption: 20% Adaption: 30% Infusion: 30% Transform: 15%

6/2017

http://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix.php

12

Seamless Articulation and Maximum Access

Digital Tools: Districts shall continue to implement and support a digital tools system that assists district instructional personnel and staff in the management, assessment and monitoring of student learning and performance.

Please complete the chart below to indicate the digital tool components your district currently has access to and utilizes. Districts may also add metrics for the measurement of CAPE (Career and Professional Education) digital tools.

C. Digital Tools Needs Analysis Students (Required)

Access Utilization

Baseline % of students with access to this type

of tool

Target % of students

with access to this type

of tool by 2017-2018

Baseline % of students

who use this type of

tool on a regular

basis

Target % of students who use

this type of tool on a regular basis by

2017-2018 II.D.1. (S) School City

A system that supports student access to online assessments and personal results.

100 % 100 % 100% 100%

II.D.2. (S) Office 365

A system that houses documents, videos, and information for students to access.

25% 50% 25% 80 %

II.D.3. (S) No system currently in place.

A system that supports student access to individualized instruction.

0% 0% 0% 0%

13

D. Digital Tools Needs Analysis

Teachers (Required)

Access Utilization

Baseline % of teachers with access to this type

of tool

Target % of teachers



Baseline % of teachers


tool on a regular

basis

Target % of teachers


tool on a regular basis by

2017-2018 II.D.1. (T) School City

A system that supports the assessment lifecycle from item creation, to assessment authoring and administration and scoring.

100% 100% 100% 100%

II.D.2. (T) O365 School City

A system that houses documents, videos and information for teachers to access.

100% 100% 20% 100%

II.D.3. (T) No System in Place.

A system that provides teachers with the ability to individualize instruction.

0 % 0 % 0 % 0%

II.D.4. (T) O365

A system that provides the ability to create instructional materials and/or resources and lesson plans.

100 % 100 % 20 % 100 %

II.D.5. (T) PDS EdConnect

A system that includes district staff information combined with the ability to create and manage professional development offerings and plans.

100 % 100% 100% 100%

II.D.6. (T) EdConnect Edsby IPT

A system that includes comprehensive student information that is used to inform instructional decisions in the classroom for analysis, and for communicating to students and parents about classroom activities and progress.

100 % 100% 75% 100%

14


Parents (Required)

Access Utilization

Baseline % of parents


of tool

Target % of parents



Baseline % of parents


tool on a regular

basis

Target % of parents who use

this type of tool on a regular basis by

2017-2018 II.D.1. (P) Edsby

A system that includes comprehensive student information to inform parents about instructional decisions, classroom activities, and student progress.

100 % 100 % 56%

60%


Instructional Materials (Required) Baseline % established in

2016 Target %

by 2017-2018 II.D.1. (IM) Percentage of instructional materials purchased

and utilized in digital format (purchases for 2016-17)

75 % 100 %

II.D.2. (IM) Percentage of total instructional materials implemented and utilized that are digital format (includes purchases from prior years)

50 % 100 %

II.D.3. (IM) Percentage of instructional materials integrated into the district Digital Tools System

20 % 100 %

II.D.4. (IM) Percentage of the materials in answer II.D.2. above that are accessible and utilized by teachers

100 % 100 %

II.D.5. (IM) Percentage of the materials in answer II.D.2. that are accessible and utilized by students

100 % 100 %

II.D.6. (IM) Percentage of parents that have access via an LIIS to their students’ instructional materials [s. 1006.283(2)(b)11, F.S.]

0 % 0 %

***For items II.D.4 and II.D.5, the digital materials purchased are 100% accessible to teachers & students; how much they are actually utilized by teachers & students is hard to determine.

15

Quality Efficient Services

Online Assessment Readiness: Districts shall work to reduce the amount of time used for the administration of computer-based assessments.

Online assessment (or computer-based testing) will be measured by the computer-based testing certification tool and the number of devices available and used for each assessment window. Districts will use the attached device worksheet to calculate the target for this category. This worksheet calculates the amount of devices and funds necessary to meet the statutory requirements for the Digital Classrooms Plan allocation as defined in s. 1011.62(12)(g), F.S. The worksheet provides the number of FTE students per school based on the 2015-16 4th FTE calculation and determines the maximum count of students across grades 3-10. This number of students equates to the number of devices that must be available at each school to administer the FSA to an entire grade at the same time. The worksheet provides the number of devices reported available for testing at each school based on the 2015-16 FSA Computer-Based Assessment Certification Tool. The district may update the number of computers available at each school if additional devices are available that do not impact instructional use. D. Online Assessments Needs

Analysis (Required) Baseline established in

2016 Target

Date Target to be

Achieved (Mo/Year)

II.E.1. (D) Computers/devices available for statewide FSA/EOC computer-based assessments

31,284 53,967 (1/2017)

II.E.2. (D) Percent of schools reducing the amount of scheduled time required to complete statewide FSA/EOC computer-based assessments

50 % 100 % 8/2017

16

STEP 2 – Goal Setting: Provide goals established by the district that support the districts mission and vision. Enter district goals below: District Mission: Preparing Students for Life District Vision: To provide an education and the supports that enable each student to excel as a successful and responsible citizen District Goals:

• Increase Graduation Rate • Communicating with Stakeholders

• Foundation of Financial Stewardship

• Building Strong Culture & Relationships

17

STEP 3 – Strategy Setting: Districts will outline high-level digital learning and technology strategies that will help achieve the goals of the district. Each strategy will outline the districts theory-of-action for how the goals in Step 2 will be addressed. Each strategy should have a measurement and timeline estimation. Enter the district strategies below: Goal Addressed Strategy Measurement Timeline Increase Graduation Rate Supply identified

schools with devices and software to enhance instruction and provide enough tools for assessment.

Enough devices to test a complete grade band at each high school

2017

Communicating with Stakeholders

Develop and provide access to technology training.

Movement on the TIM scale from adoption to infusion.

2014-2020

Foundation of Financial Stewardship

Utilize VDI to extend the functionality of existing hardware

More devices ready and available for student use and assessment

2/2017

Building Strong Culture & Relationships

Providing Teachers more instructional time by reducing the assessment window.

Testing will be completed in a shorter period of time without displacing any instructional classroom labs.

2/2017

In addition, if the district participates in federal technology initiatives and grant programs, please describe below a plan for meeting requirements of such initiatives and grant programs. ***The District participates in the E-Rate funding program and has applied for funding for 2016 – 2017 for the replacement of all wireless equipment and infrastructure at all K-12 school sites. This new equipment will provide a robust and reliable high capacity wireless infrastructure for all schools. The wireless capacity will be needed to support the additional wireless devices provided to the schools for assessment.

18

Part III. DIGITAL CLASSROOMS PLAN - ALLOCATION PROPOSAL The DCP and the DCP Allocation must include five key components as required by s. 1011.62(12)(b), F.S. In this section of the DCP, districts will outline specific deliverables that will be implemented in the current year that are funded from the DCP Allocation. The five components that are included are:

A) Student Performance Outcomes B) Digital Learning and Technology Infrastructure C) Professional Development D) Digital Tools E) Online Assessments

This section of the DCP will document the activities and deliverables under each component. The sections for each component include, but are not limited to:

• Implementation Plan – Provide details on the planned deliverables and/or milestones for the implementation of each activity for the component area. This should be specific to the deliverables that will be funded from the DCP Allocation.

• Evaluation and Success Criteria – For each step of the implementation plan, describe the process for evaluating the status of the implementation and how successful implementation will be determined once completed. This should include how the deliverable will tie to the measurement of the student performance outcome goals established in component A.

Districts will complete a budget worksheet to determine areas of need for online assessment. This worksheet calculates the amount of devices and funds necessary to meet the statutory requirements for the Digital Classrooms Plan allocation. The worksheet provides the number of FTE students per school based on the 2015-16 4th FTE calculation and determines the maximum count of students across grades 3-10. This number of students equates to the number of devices that must be available at each school to administer the FSA to an entire grade at the same time. The worksheet provides the number of devices reported available for testing at each school based on the 2015-16 FSA Computer-Based Assessment Certification Tool. The district may update the number of computers available at each school if additional devices are available that do not impact instructional use. Specific items indicated below:

• Sum of Deliverables across component areas will be included.

19

A) Student Performance Outcomes Districts will determine specific student performance outcomes based on district needs and goals that will be directly impacted by the DCP allocation. These outcomes can be specific to an individual school site, grade level/band, subject or content area, or district wide. These outcomes are the specific goals that the district plans to improve through the implementation of the deliverables funded by the DCP allocation for the 2016-17 school year. Enter the district student performance outcomes for 2016-17 that will be directly impacted by the DCP Allocation below: A. Student Performance Outcomes Baseline Target Num Num III.A.1. Increase ELA Student Achievement 51.1 % 52.1 % III.A.2. Increase Math Student Achievement 53.1 % 54.1 % III.A.3. Increase Science Student

Achievement 58.1 % 59.1 %

III.A.4. Overall, 4-year Graduation Rate 76.1 % 77.1 %

20

B) Digital Learning and Technology Infrastructure State recommendations for technology infrastructure can be found at http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5658/urlt/0097849-device-bandwidthtechspecs.pdf. These specifications are recommendations that will accommodate the requirements of state supported applications and assessments. Implementation Plan for B) Digital Learning and Technology Infrastructure: B. Infrastructure Implementation

Deliverable Estimated Completion Mo/Year

Estimated Cost

School/ District

Gap addressed from Sect. II

III.B.1. Reliable and robust wireless access in all classrooms

6/2017 $23 Million

All schools II.B.7

III.B.2. III.B.3. III.B.4. If additional funding will be spent in this category, other than this year’s DCP allocation, please briefly describe below how the target gaps will be addressed by other fund sources. B. Infrastructure Implementation Brief description of other activities

Other funding source Estimated

Amount

Estimated Completion

Date Mo/Year Upgraded wireless infrastructure at all schools

E-rate Funding $ 19 million 6/2017

Upgraded wireless infrastructure at all schools

District budget $4 million 6/2017

http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5658/urlt/0097849-device-bandwidthtechspecs.pdf

21

Evaluation and Success Criteria for B) Digital Learning and Technology Infrastructure: Describe the process that will be used for evaluation of the implementation plan and the success criteria for each deliverable. This evaluation process should enable the district to monitor progress toward the specific goals and targets of each deliverable and make mid-course (i.e. mid-year) corrections in response to new developments and opportunities as they arise. B. Infrastructure Evaluation and Success Criteria Deliverable (from above)

Monitoring and Evaluation and Process(es)

Success Criteria

III.B.1. Infrastructure & Shared Services will manage the E-Rate Project

Completion of all school sites with full wireless coverage verified by heatmaps.

III.B.2. III.B.3. III.B.4. Additionally, if the district intends to use any portion of the DCP allocation for the technology and infrastructure needs area B, s. 1011.62(12)(b), F.S., requires districts to submit a third-party evaluation of the results of the district’s technology inventory and infrastructure needs. Please describe the process used for the evaluation and submit the evaluation results with the DCP.

22

C) Professional Development State recommendations for digital learning professional development include at a minimum, High Quality Master In-service Plan (MIP) components that address:

• School leadership “look-fors” on quality digital learning processes in the classroom • Educator capacity to use available technology • Instructional lesson planning using digital resources; and • Student digital learning practices

These MIP components should include participant implementation agreements that address issues arising in needs analyses and be supported by school level monitoring and feedback processes supporting educator growth related to digital learning. Over the last 3 years, the TIM has become the de facto framework for defining and evaluating technology integration in our Project Innovate and 1:1 sites. In the first year of the Digital Classroom Plan and prior to Project Innovate, we selected 3 sites rich with technology to participate in Project Byte and complete extensive training in technology integration into student-centered instruction. These sites were trained in the “expert conversations” model that makes use of three TIM related tools; the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM), the Technology Uses and Perceptions Survey (TUPS), the Technology Integration Matrix Observation (TIMO) tool, as well as a site-based Implementation Plan in which each site defines their own Classroom Visitation and Professional Learning (PLC) cycles. To support this area, please insert links to the district MIP: Here is the link to the Hillsborough County Master InService Plan: http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/doc/1083/profdev-mip Implementation Plan for C) Professional Development: The plan should include process for scheduling delivery of the district’s MIP components on digital learning and identify other school based processes that will provide on-going support for professional development on digital learning. C. Professional Development Implementation


Estimated Cost School/ District


III.C.1. TIMS Training 6/2017 0 III.C.2. Office 365 Training 6/2017 0 III.C.3.

23

If additional funding will be spent in this category, other than this year’s DCP allocation, please briefly describe below how the target gaps will be addressed by other fund sources. C. Professional Development Implementation Brief description of other activities


Amount


Date Mo/Year Continuing use of the TIM District Professional

Development Regular budget 6/2017

Evaluation and Success Criteria for C) Professional Development: Describe the process that will be used for evaluation of the implementation plan and the success criteria for each deliverable. This evaluation process should enable the district to monitor progress toward the specific goals and targets of each deliverable and make mid-course (i.e. mid-year) corrections in response to new developments and opportunities as they arise. C. Professional Development Evaluation and Success Criteria Deliverable (from above)


Success Criteria

III.C.1. Ongoing classroom visits Movement on the TIM matrix toward infusion by teachers

III.C.2. III.C.3. III.C.4.

24

D) Digital Tools Digital Tools should include a comprehensive digital tool system for the improvement of digital learning. Districts will be required to maintain a digital tools system that is intended to support and assist district and school instructional personnel and staff in the management, assessment and monitoring of student learning and performance. Digital tools may also include purchases and activities to support CAPE digital tools opportunities and courses. A list of currently recommended certificates and credentials can be found at: http://www.fldoe.org/workforce/fcpea/default.asp. Devices that meet or exceed minimum requirements and protocols established by the FDOE may also be included here.

Implementation Plan for D) Digital Tools: D. Digital Tools Implementation


Estimated Cost

School/ District


III.D.1.

No digital tool purchase

III.D.2.

III.D.3.

III.D.4.

http://www.fldoe.org/workforce/fcpea/default.asp

25

Evaluation and Success Criteria for D) Digital Tools: Describe the process that will be used for evaluation of the implementation plan and the success criteria for each deliverable. This evaluation process should enable the district to monitor progress toward the specific goals and targets of each deliverable and make mid-course (i.e. mid-year) corrections in response to new developments and opportunities as they arise. D. Digital Tools Evaluation and Success Criteria Deliverable (from above)


Success Criteria

III.D.1. No deliverable this year III.D.2. III.D.3. III.D.4.

26

E) Online Assessments Districts will use DCP funds to be in compliance with s. 1011.62(12)(g), F.S., which indicates that each district’s digital classrooms allocation plan must give preference to funding the number of devices that comply with the requirements of s. 1001.20(4)(a)1.b., and that are needed to allow each school to administer the Florida Standards Assessment to an entire grade at the same time. This will be calculated by the district completing the device worksheet that accompanies the DCP template. The device worksheet will calculate the amount of devices and funds necessary to meet the statutory requirements for the Digital Classrooms Plan allocation. The worksheet provides the number of FTE students per school based on the 2015-16 4th FTE calculation and determines the maximum count of students across grades 3-10. This number of students equates to the number of devices that must be available at each school to administer the FSA to an entire grade at the same time. The worksheet provides the number of devices reported available for testing at each school based on the 2015-16 FSA Computer-Based Assessment Certification Tool. The district may update the number of computers available at each school if additional devices are available that do not impact instructional use. The worksheet will then calculate a total number of devices needed for each school. The district will be required to include a deliverable to meet this requirement as part of the DCP plan in Section III. Online Assessment Support. Implementation Plan for E) Online Assessments: The implementation plan for Hillsborough County will be a blended approach. Plans include the purchase of 8000 laptops for assessment. These will be distributed based on the site needs listed on the District worksheet. The target group will be High Schools, which have the largest testing groups and the most difficulty scheduling all of the testing sessions within the designated window. In addition, a few of the largest middle schools and elementary schools will also be provided additional devices to improve their testing schedule. The second part of the plan will be to setup a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) that will allow a modern desktop with all updates to be presented on existing equipment. The District currently has 340 high stakes testing labs that are 6 years old. The cost to upgrade all of those (8500) computers would be $4.5 million dollars. Using VDI, those 8500 computers will offer a virtual desktop perfectly configured for assessment with no school technical support. An additional 4000 licenses would provide added assessment devices to elementary and middle schools using. VDI “seats” for older media center labs to again provide a pristine and ready testing environment. By offering this blended plan, we can address the immediate needs of the high schools while offering needed support to the elementary and middle school sites. An added benefit to the VDI will be that outside of the testing window students bringing their own devices (BYOD) can be provided with a secure district desktop or applications, and administrative desktop computer life can be extended without the hardware replacement.

28

E. Online Assessment Implementation


Estimated Cost School/ District


III.E.1. 8000 Laptops & charging carts (entire grade band of high school)

Jan 2017 $ 2,500,000 II.B.3

III.E.2. VmWare Server hardware and licensing for VDI (virtual desktop infrastructure)

Jan 2017 $ 1,000,000 II.B.2

III.E.3. III.E.4 If additional funding will be spent in this category, other than this year’s DCP allocation, please briefly describe below how the target gaps will be addressed by other fund sources. E. Online Assessment Implementation Brief description of other activities


Amount


Date Mo/Year Additional VMware server hardware

Last year’s DCP $400,000 Jan 2017

Evaluation and Success Criteria for E) Online Assessments: Describe the process that will be used for evaluation of the implementation plan and the success criteria for each deliverable. This evaluation process should enable the district to monitor progress toward the specific goals and targets of each deliverable and make mid-course (i.e. mid-year) corrections in response to new developments and opportunities as they arise. E. Online Assessment Evaluation and Success Criteria Deliverable (from above)


Success Criteria

E.1. Review of the CBT survey for high school scheduling

All students at each high school grade band can test at the same time.

E.2.

district digital classroom · pdf file1 . district . digital classroom plan . ... i.3...

Documents