Northwest School Division and IBM Confidential November 1, 2012 Technology Enabled Learning Plan In...

Northwest School Division and IBM Confidential November 1, 2012

Technology Enabled Learning PlanIn Support of the Northwest School Division Continuous Improvement Framework

Prepared by the IBM K-12 Education Consulting Team


Prepared by:IBM Canada K-12 Education Consulting Team3600 Steeles Avenue East,Markham, Ontario L3R 9Z7

Authored by:Anne Saftich,

Chief Education Officer, IBM Canada K-12 Education [email protected] 416-606-6571

Mike EastGeneral Manager, IBM Canada K-12 Education [email protected] 416-523-7504

David EllSenior Education Consultant, IBM Canada K-12 Education [email protected] 306-540-5922

This document contains information that is proprietary to, and is the property of, IBM Canada Ltd. The recipient of this document, by its retention and use, agrees to hold this document and its contents in confidence. This document shall not be transferred or communicated to any third party, without the prior written consent of IBM Canada Ltd., in whole or part, by any means. This document or any other applicable documents provided by IBM Canada Ltd., shall be returned to IBM Canada Ltd., upon request. This Proprietary Information Notice is an integral part of this document and shall not be removed or altered.

© 2012 IBM CorporationIBM Confidential


Section Page

Introduction 1 Introduction and Deliverables 1 4

IBM Educational Consulting Process 1 8

IBM Educational Technology Framework 1 9

Strategic Recommendations and Key Observation 1 10

Analysis and Recommendations by Each Component of IBM Educational Framework 2 14

Why Statement: Vision and Focus Areas 3 16

Division Commitment 4 24

Sustainability 5 47

Teacher Access 6 54

Student Access 7 61

Software and Digital Resources 8 74

Access to Digital Information and Resources 9 88

Innovative Teaching Practices for the 21st Century 10 94

Professional Development 11 100

Other Considerations – Technical Support 12 140

Financial Analysis and Budget Considerations 13 143

Project Milestones 14 150

Table of Contents


Introduction and

Deliverables


Introduction and DeliverablesAny plan of a strategic nature in a school division, for educational technology or otherwise, must recognize understand, embrace and support the vision, culture and mission of that division.

The Mission and Vision Statement for the Northwest School Division is “Laying the foundation for success. One student at a time”. The overarching Guiding Principles statement is: “We are committed to:

The pursuit of excellence based upon high expectations for all The principle of being student-centred Accountability toward each other as individuals, schools, communities and governing bodies A culture of mutual respect, trust and understanding The highest standards of integrity and honesty Inclusiveness as the celebration and acceptance of all people Collaborative and cooperative relationships with all .”

- NWSD Continuous Improvement Framework, 2010-2013

However, there are profound changes occurring in the world around us that are equally important to understand.“The advent of the knowledge and digital age is fuelling profound and escalating changes in global economies and societies. Advancements in brain science are providing insights into how people learn while also demonstrating that the minds of today's youth, the so-called digital generation, are being hard-wired to the digital landscape within which they live. At the same time, studies are confirming a crisis of disengagement of learners from traditional learning and teaching models. … Many organizations and authors have identified these competencies and called for transformation of public education systems globally to meet current learning needs and educators to shift the way they teach to better engage learners.”’

- From Shifting Minds, a discussion paper from C21 Canada: Canadians for 21st Century Learning and Innovation.

Unlike other sectors in society, school divisions have tended to lag in their understanding and embracing of the potential of these global trends and changes.

“In the digital age, how can we expect schools to improve student achievement - the most important outcome of education - without taking full advantage of technology to support students, teachers and administrators? No other leading industry would try to position itself for success today without using technology comprehensively and purposefully to achieve its goals.”

- D. Knezek, former CEO of ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education)

5


Introduction and DeliverablesThere is a recognition by the executive team of the Northwest School Division (NWSD) that although they have experienced some success with respect to educational technology, they have not been able to have a division wide and sustainable impact in which educational technology is truly embedded and embraced, where appropriate, in the teaching and learning process. They want to ensure that a plan and process is established to ensure technology is truly integrated into the teaching and learning environment and that all initiatives are aligned to the division’s top achievement priorities so that everyone is working together to have a positive impact on student learning.

IBM Canada’s K-12 Education Division was selected in July 2012 to develop an educational technology strategic plan to accomplish the above objectives, and to ensure that the technology investments that the division makes are aligned with their educational priorities in order to improve student achievement and build teacher capacity in those priority areas.

The plan contained in this document, entitled the Technology Enabled Learning Plan (TELP) in Support of the Continuous Improvement Framework, is the deliverable that resulted from that engagement. This Technology Enabled Learning Plan provides guiding principles and an educational technology roadmap for the division for the next 3 to 5 years.

This plan focuses on all the aspects and components of educational technology that contribute to its purposeful and effective teaching and learning use. It is important to note that an essential prerequisite – before any of the teaching and learning components in this report can be effective – is a stable, secure and supportable infrastructure (i.e. fileservers, storage devices, network components, network and internet bandwidth, directory structures, etc.). Infrastructure is beyond the scope of this engagement but it is an essential foundation for everything in this plan and an IT Optimization Review is recommended to ensure the infrastructure is sound and able to support the effective use recommendations in this plan.

If the recommendations in this report are to come to fruition, it will require commitment to the vision created by this plan, strong leadership, effective governance structures and financial discipline.

6


Introduction and Deliverables

Acknowledgements:

Many staff from NWSD contributed their time, feedback and suggestions throughout this process. This involved completing surveys, attending specific focus groups, having individual meetings or participating on the Core Team. IBM is very appreciative of the efforts and thoughtful insights that all participants provided, which contributed significantly to this resultant Technology Enabled Learning Plan.

Special thanks are extended to Terry Craig, Superintendent of Education (School Operations) and Kim Chiverton, Principal of Information Services. Their leadership throughout this entire engagement was invaluable. They also demonstrated that this exercise was not “about the technology” but rather about using technology in a purposeful way to address the top student achievement challenges facing the division.

Report Format:

This plan is in Microsoft PowerPoint format to simplify presentation and discussion of the material with various stakeholders. Please note - some charts are ready to be used for presentations, whereas others have more text to provide additional details, and are not intended to be used for presentations in their current format.

7


IBM Educational Consulting Process

Discovery Phase:IBM K-12 consultants reviewed internal documents, met with Terry Craig and Kim Chiverton in late June 2012 and then some of the executive team in August. Documents from the division were shared with, and reviewed by, the IBM Consultants. Surveys with NWSD staff were also conducted in early September 2012.

Analysis and Discussion Phase:Over the course of the on-site engagement which occurred in September 2012, IBM met with the Core Team, members of the Curriculum Team, members of the Information Services team, and representative teachers and principals from both the elementary and secondary panels.

The 2 day workshop with the Core Team discussed the educational priorities of the division, a vision for educational technology including focused priorities from the Continuous Improvement Framework, components of the IBM Educational Framework and potential strategies and directions.

In the focus groups with certain stakeholders the specific needs, challenges and opportunities related to learning priorities and educational technology were discussed and the vision for educational technology that was developed by the Core Team was reviewed to gather their feedback.

Recommendation Phase:This report, presented on the third and final day with the Core Team, contains the findings of the consulting process and the recommended Technology Enabled Learning Plan for NWSD.

This Technology Enabled Learning plan is based on IBM’s Educational Technology Framework – which considers all the components of an educational technology implementation that must be addressed in order for that implementation to be effective.

8


IBM Educational Technology Framework

Research provides evidence that technology has a positive impact on both student achievement and on teacher capacity when it is implemented and supported correctly – or when it is “done right”.

In order to realize these benefits and “do it right”, research indicates there are a number of contributing factors or components – EACH OF WHICH must be considered and addressed. Based on IBM’s extensive experience in working with school divisions, these components have been incorporated into a framework entitled the “IBM Educational Technology Framework”.

This Framework – and the best practices within each of the component areas - served as the guiding principles in the development of this Technology Enabled Learning Plan.

PLEASE NOTE: This engagement focused only on the Organizational and Effective Use components of the framework. A separate engagement to ensure the infrastructure can support this plan is recommended.

9

Organizational Components

Effective Use Components

Infrastructure Components© 2012 IBM Corporation


Strategic Recommendations - 2 Essential Prerequisites:

Before any of the teaching and learning components in this plan can be effective:

1. A stable, secure and supportable infrastructure must be in place:• Fileservers, storage, network electronics, network and

internet bandwidth, directory structures, system software

2. It requires strong leadership from the senior team: • Commitment to the vision and plan• Financial discipline• Compelling desire to take action

10


Strategic RecommendationsStrategic recommendations are guiding principles that should be adopted by NWSD for all future Educational Technology related initiatives. While they are incorporated in the Technology Enabled Learning Plan recommended in this report, they should serve as long term guiding principles even if the specifics of this recommended plan were to change over time.

A division’s educational technology investment must first and foremost be aligned to their educational priorities. This is represented by the first, and most important component of the Framework – which is a definition of “Why You Are Buying Educational Technology” including clearly defined and measurable Focus Areas based on your top educational priorities.

Recommendation: NWSD should directly link their Technology Enabled Learning Plan (TELP) to the division’s top learning/achievement priorities. This will ensure the TELP will be aligned to the division’s multi-year strategic plan.

Recommendation: Adopt or create a cultural shift in thinking whereby the use of educational technology is Curriculum led – i.e. led by, and aligned to “educational priorities” – not device led. Educational technology needs to be thought of in the same way as other curriculum support resources (i.e. literacy and mathematics resources) – and embedded and embraced accordingly. Technology needs to be thought of as a means, not an end in itself. The executive team needs to own responsibility for this guiding principle and ensure it is continuously adhered to.

Recommendation: Spend time on creating a culture of communication using the most appropriate communication strategies and vehicles to reach all staff members, parents, students and community stakeholders.

11


Strategic RecommendationsAs described in the IBM Educational Technology Framework, there are a number of components related to educational technology that must be done correctly in order for it to be truly effective.

Recommendation: Once these are understood by NWSD, care must be taken to ensure that each component of the framework must be attended to in any plan or implementation of educational technology.

For example, it is critical to remember that you must have (a) an identified educational priority that you are focusing on, (b) software aligned to that priority, (c) an access model for students, (d) an access model for teachers, (e) comprehensive PD for teachers, administrators and division staff, and (e) a high level of organizational commitment and sustainability.

Failure to do any one of these components correctly will render the implementation less effective than it should be. The traditional tendency for school divisions is to focus on just one or two of the components (especially the hardware / access component) and risk continued ineffective use.

Recommendation: The thinking should be if the division can’t afford to do all of the components, then you should reduce the scope of your Focus Area so that you can afford to do all the components. i.e. “Do less, but do it right”.

Recommendation: The division should measure whether futurepractice really does attend to all components required foreffective implementation. NWSD should compare theactual budget for educational technology projects to thebest practices approximate budget allocation shown here:

12

40%

15%25%

20%

Hardware

Software

PD/Training

Tech Support


Key Observation and Recommendation:

Key Observation: We felt it was important to note that feedback regarding the network speed was that the performance of the network within the school was quite acceptable. (i.e. launching software or retrieving data from the server within the school). However, the speed of the network outside the school, i.e. from a school to other locations in the division, or to the Internet, was consistently reported to be unacceptable. This was attributed to the relatively limited bandwidth (speed) of the current network beyond the walls of a school.

While we have attempted to tailor the recommendations to accommodate this limitation, we believe NWSD should make every effort to increase bandwidth in all portions of the network – especially speed to the Internet. Failure to do this will significantly limit the ability of NWSD to move forward in many of the web-based directions typically associated with a Technology Enabled Learning Plan of this nature.

13


Findings, Analysis and

Recommendations

By Each Component of the IBM Educational Framework


The following symbols are in the upper right corners of the pages and indicate the type of information that is found on a specific page:

Best Practices – These are shown in BLUE text.

Consultants Observations

Feedback

Observation and Recommendations

Key to Types of Information by Page


Findings, Analysis and Recommendations By Framework Component

Why: Vision and Focus Areas


Best Practices: Why Statement Based on Focused Educational Priorities

The following best practices are evident in a division when they have a clearly defined Why statement; that expresses their vision for investing in technology; and relates to focused educational priorities:

Division educational priorities are identified and well articulated in a multi-year Strategic Plan and in the Board Improvement Plan

There is a formal statement of why you are buying technology

• Co-constructed by the leadership team with input from other stakeholders

• High level vision statement that then narrows the focus to one or more of the educational priorities; that are clearly defined and measureable Focus Areas

• Focus on a subset of grades and/or subject areas, with Focus Areas over a 3-5 year timeframe

All stakeholders know and understand why you are buying technology

Leadership team revisits the Why every year

• To keep it aligned to changing educational priorities / Board Improvement Plan


Observation: The Core Team felt that students today learn differently than previous generations of students and that creating an environment that addresses their unique needs is necessary.

Observation: All Core Team members felt that educational technology can support the improvement of the learning outcomes for all children by providing an engaging and creative learning environment. It can motivate and enable ALL students through differentiated instruction.

Observation: All Core Team members agreed that educational technology can be used to build teacher capacity and create a more engaging experience for all learners in the classroom.

Observation: Survey feedback indicated that more than 70% of elementary and secondary students have access to technology at school a few times a week or less. All participants agreed that it is difficult to truly embed educational technology into the teaching and learning experience with limited access (i.e. a few times a week or less).

Observation: Based on survey feedback and discussion with various stakeholders, the amount of educational technology is not an issue. Rather the barriers to access are the location of the technology and the lack of understanding and ability of some teachers to truly embed it into the learning experience.

Observation: Feedback from various stakeholder groups indicated that there has been no clear focus for the use of technology beyond providing a standard hardware/infrastructure rollout. Both division and school staff indicated teachers would be excited to know there is a comprehensive plan with a clear focus and expectation for how it should be used.

18

Consultant Observations and Stakeholder Feedback:Why Statement Based on Focused Educational Priorities


Observation: During focus groups with teachers and during the Core Team session, although there was consensus that educational technology can contribute to achievement and a more engaging learning environment, the investment the division has made to date is not being used as effectively as it could be. Staff estimated that approximately 40% to 60% of teachers are overwhelmed by, or uncomfortable, with technology. They suggested that barriers to effective use include:

Comfort level with technology Overwhelming sense that they must accomplish all of the curriculum outcomes and do not have time to embed technology or are

unsure of how to embed it into their practice Not enough Professional Development opportunities provided that are hands-on. In addition, follow-on coaching in the schools to

support the teachers after the initial introduction is needed. Not enough time to know what software is available and how to figure out how to incorporate it Knowing what digital resources are available to support their subject area or the outcomes they are currently working on Limitations of infrastructure (bandwidth, inability to move a laptop between rooms and easily reconnect to peripherals and LAN) Comfort level with technology (non-tech savvy) Time – to learn and to change practice Perceived as an add-on; one more initiative Principal buy-in: do they truly believe it will make a difference and can they show teachers the potential of it Are there enough staff to sustain this initiative at the division level (additional technology; resources; data warehouse; assessment

tools, etc.). Teachers continue to teach the way they were taught Professional autonomy could be threatened if teachers are told what to do

Recommendation: These barriers can be addressed with a clearly articulated Why statement and commitment to implementing all components of the IBM Education Technology Framework. In particular, the professional development plan that will be developed under the Professional Development component will play a significant role in the success of this plan.

Observations and Recommendations:Why Statement Based on Focused Educational Priorities


Consultant Observations: Why Statement Based on Focused Educational Priorities

Observation: NWSD was able to clearly state their top priorities and these are outlined in their Continuous Improvement Framework:

Literacy K to 9: Every student by the end of grade three should be reading to learn as well as learning to read at grade level. (K-3 must be targeted)

Numeracy K to 9: Working with teachers and students and their access to resources.

High Schools Gr 10 to 12: Literacy across the curriculum.

Observation: The Core Team was then able to break these large grade groupings into smaller ones, and place them in priority order based on the data and understanding of their students’ needs.

Observation: Concerns related to effective communication were raised by many stakeholders in this engagement. Examples of lack of understanding of strategies, initiatives and investments were reported. There were specific examples of communications not being received that were cited by different members of the focus groups.

Observation: Until the Why statement is clearly articulated, understood and embraced, the remaining best practices in this component cannot be expected to be observed. This component and demonstration of its best practices should be assessed approximately one year after the statement has been defined and communicated, and reassessed annually.


Recommendation: To accomplish the objective of the alignment of educational technology with the division achievement priorities and to ensure that it is embedded in the teaching and learning process, the following WHY / Vision Statement was developed during the workshop with the Core Team. This statement was used to guide the formation of all recommendations in this report and should be used, going forward as the compass for all future educational technology investments. It will be essential that this statement is reviewed annually, or as often as the NWSD multi-year strategic plan is updated to ensure continued alignment with the division’s educational priorities.

Recommendations:Why Statement Based on Focused Educational Priorities

WHY / Vision Statement for Educational Technology

We (NWSD) are investing in an educational technology plan in support of our mission of “Laying the foundation for success one student at a time”. Over the next three to five years, we will focus our use of educational technology on supporting our division’s top achievement priorities and implement it in the following sequence of Focus Areas:

Focus Area 1: Literacy - K to 3

Focus Area 2: Literacy - Gr 4 to 9

Focus Area 3: Numeracy - Gr 4 to 9

Focus Area 4: Numeracy - K to 3

Focus Area 5: High Schools Gr 10 to 12, Literacy across the Curriculum

* Note: Future Focus Areas (i.e. Focus Areas not yet implemented) are to be reviewed annually to ensure continued relevancy.


Consultant Observations and Stakeholder Feedback:Why Statement Based on Focused Educational Priorities

Observation: The Core Team discussed whether literacy should be focused on before numeracy in the implementation sequence. After rich discussion it was agreed that the impact that literacy has on all areas of the curriculum, including math, is profound. It is known that a student’s achievement in grade 3 literacy is a good indicator of future graduation rates.

Observation: In the curriculum focus group there was rich discussion related to the specific order of the Focus Areas beyond the first two, which everyone was in agreement with. The concern was when should K-3 numeracy be addressed. After much discussion the group agreed that putting it in as Focus Area 4 was appropriate especially if the areas of focus are reviewed each year. Observation: Both elementary and secondary focus groups were in agreement with this statement. Their consensus was that teachers would understand why K-3 literacy was chosen and would look forward to the improvements in literacy achievement in students as they reached their classrooms in later years. Observation: The ministry is focusing on K-3 literacy which will provide additional support to selecting this as the first Focus Area.


Recommendations: Why Statement Based on Focused Educational Priorities

Recommendation: NWSD will use the Why statement as a compass to guide all future educational technology investments. This statement will be reviewed annually, by the executive team, in facilitated sessions, to ensure it continues to be aligned with NWSD’s multi-year strategic plan (i.e. the division educational priorities).

Recommendation: All recommendations in this plan must be reviewed as soon as possible and a decision reached as to which recommendations will be adopted and implemented.

Recommendation: Once the recommendations from this report are approved by the executive team and the Board, the implementation of the plan should be co-owned by Terry Craig and Aaron Oakes (details on this are provided in the Division Commitment section of this plan). The formal communication plan, recommended in the Division Commitment section of this document, should then be implemented as soon as possible to inform all stakeholders about this engagement, the Technology Enabled Learning Plan, and the WHY Statement that is based on Focused Educational Priorities that will drive the plan for the next three to five years. All stakeholders will need to know (and want to know) how and when they will be impacted.

Recommendation: In order to address the barriers that were listed earlier in this section, all components of the framework must be addressed in the implementation plan

Recommendation: All costs for first Focus Area will need to be confirmed and be approved for inclusion in the budget for the 2013 – 2014 school year. For schools that are scheduled to receive updates to their infrastructure and devices in this school year (2012-2013), the recommendations from this report related to student and teacher access should be implemented at that time.


Findings, Analysis and Recommendations

By Framework Component

Division Commitment


Best Practices: Division Commitment

The following best practices are visible in a division that is committed to investing in educational technology for the purposes identified in their WHY Vision statement:

All members of the senior leadership team understand, believe in and are committed to the strategic plan for educational technology

School-based leaders also understand, believe in and are committed to the plan

There is a multi-year, formal communication plan to ensure that all stakeholders understand the WHY Vision statement:

The WHY statement is written down and communicated on an ongoing basis

Senior staff and Board members can articulate why they are buying technology

Other stakeholders also can articulate it, including division staff, principals, teachers and other staff

Expectations for use are clearly communicated and understood by all stakeholders

The use of technology is part of the Board and School Improvement Plans Principals work with their teachers to include it in their planning process

Technology is discussed as an important resource in your PLC’s, Collaborative Inquiries, collaborative Hubs and collaborative Networks


Division Commitment Recommendations: The major recommendations related to division Commitment are listed below. Each of these are expanded upon in the following pages:

Recommendation Governance: Superintendent of Schools/Technology, Terry Craig and Superintendent of Elementary Curriculum and Instruction, Aaron Oakes should co-own the Technology Enabled Learning Plan, and agree on what recommendations will be adopted. As part of this ownership, they are responsible for the identifying the required budget and obtaining Board approval for this plan.

Recommendation Governance: Terry Craig and Aaron Oakes should be responsible for: Implementing the Technology Enabled Learning Plan. Creating specific implementation teams to support the ongoing initiatives that flow out of this

Technology Enabled Learning Plan. Create and execute a strong communication plan.

Recommendation Governance: A Technology Enabled Learning Team (TELT) should be formed, under the guidance of Terry Craig and Aaron Oakes to implement the Technology Enabled Learning Plan.

Recommendation Governance: Due to workload and time constraints of NWSD staff, an external Leading and Learning educational consultant, who has experience with similar initiatives in other divisions should sit on this team as a resource to the team. This person will be able to provide insight in the selection of digital resources and creating and supporting the professional development plan.


Division Commitment Recommendations:

Recommendation Communication: Given that communications was cited as one of the division’s biggest challenge, we support the current plan to hire a Communications Officer who will be responsible for managing and implementing a strong communications plan for the Technology Enabled Learning Plan and all other division initiatives.

Recommendation Communication: A communication plan pertaining to NWSD’s Technology Enabled Learning Plan must be developed immediately (a draft plan is shown later in this section). It should be owned by the Technology Enabled Learning Team. It should be refined and implemented as early as possible once the executive team and Board has approved the overall plan. The early objectives of the communication plan will be to provide awareness and to build support for the plan as it moves through the approval and budget process.

Recommendation Expectation of Use: The current Acceptable Use Policy must be updated to reflect current issues that the division may encounter such as access for wireless devices, if and how personal electronic devices can be used in school by both staff and students, inappropriate uses of division-owned and personal devices, digital citizenship, etc.


Observations and Recommendations: Division Commitment – Organizational Structures

Observation: An IT Steering Committee was formed last year in an attempt to develop a unified approach to hardware/software and professional development across the division. It was comprised of both IT and Curriculum/Instruction representatives. The team met a few times but were unable to effectively move forward and the assistance of an outside party to help with this alignment was sought - resulting in this engagement.

Observation: Many of the decisions related to educational technology fall to the Principal of Information Services and his team. The investments in educational technology should be led by the Curriculum and Instruction team in order to tightly align it to the achievement goals of the division.

Recommendation: Superintendent of Schools/Technology, Terry Craig and Superintendent of Elementary Curriculum and Instruction, Aaron Oakes should co-own the Technology Enabled Learning Plan, and agree on what recommendations will be adopted. Annually, they should lead the executive team through an exercise to revisit the WHY Vision statement and ensure the Focus Areas continue to support the multi-year strategic plan. As part of this ownership, they are responsible for identifying the required budget and obtaining Board approval for this plan. They should be responsible for:

Implementing the Technology Enabled Learning Plan.

Creating specific implementation teams to support the ongoing initiatives that flow out of this Technology Enabled Learning Plan.

Create and execute a strong communication plan.

28



Recommendation: An implementation team must be formed to ensure the recommendations from this report, once approved, are implemented and assessed over time. This team should be called the Technology Enabled Learning Team (TELT) to emphasize that the focus for all educational technology investments should be on learning and student achievement.

Recommendation: The TELT must be Curriculum/Educator led and will be responsible for making recommendations on all educational technology decisions: This team should be co-chaired by the Superintendent of Schools/Technology, Terry Craig and Superintendent

of Elementary Curriculum and Instruction, Aaron Oakes for at least the first three Focus Areas.

Membership should include: Superintendent of Education (Student Services), Superintendent of Education (Curriculum), Principal of Information Services, an Elementary Principal, a Secondary Principal, a representative Learning Coach, a representative School Based Instructional Facilitator (formerly known as the TIL), the Resource Based Learning Coordinator, a Special Education Consultant, a Speech and Language Pathologist, a representative K-3 teacher (for Focus Area #1) and the Communications Officer.

29


Recommendations: Division Commitment – Organizational Structures

Recommendation: The TELT should be charged with the mission of implementing the recommendations in this plan. Their mandate will be to:

Ensure technology is aligned with the top achievement priorities of the board by ensuring the WHY Vision statement and Focus Areas align with the multi-year strategic plan.

Each decision will be scrutinized to ensure that it addresses the learning priorities of the division and the team will ensure that they consider the Total Cost of Ownership as it relates to the specific initiative being considered.

Create a clearly defined implementation plan for each Focus Area with goals and success criteria.

Conduct yearly assessments of progress and implement continuous improvement processes to ensure ongoing improvements are incorporated into the plan.

Subject to the selection of resources by the Software and Digital Repository Advisory Team (SDRAT), select the appropriate student and teacher devices.

Recommendation: Smaller implementation teams will be charged with delivering on all aspects of the plan.

Recommendation: This team must meet regularly on an ongoing (i.e. permanent) basis. Regular meetings of the TELT should occur to ensure these goals are met. They should consider meeting multiple times a month in the first six months and then monthly after that.

Recommendation: The Co-Chairs will report to the executive team and the Board on a regular basis (monthly or bimonthly).

30



• Technology Enabled Learning Team

• Executive Team

• Update the mandate of the Executive Team

to own the Technology Enabled Learning

Plan in Support of the Continuous

Improvement Framework (CIF), agreeing on

what recommendations will be adopted. The

Executive Team will be responsible for

revisiting the WHY statement and ensuring

the selected Focus Areas continue to support

the CIF.

• The TELT should be charged with the mission of implementing the recommendations in this plan. Their mandate will be to:

• - ensure technology is aligned with the top achievement priorities of the division by ensuring the WHY Vision statement and Focus Areas align with the multi-year strategic plan

• - each decision will be scrutinized to ensure that it addresses the Learning Priorities of the division and the team will ensure that they consider the Total Cost of Ownership as it relates to the specific initiative being considered

• - create a clearly defined implementation plan for each focus area with goals and success criteria

• - conduct yearly assessments of progress and implement continuous improvement processes to ensure ongoing learnings are incorporated into the plan

External Consultant as a resource to the Executive Team and

the TELT


Recommendations: Division Commitment – Supporting Implementation Teams

Recommendation: Creation of the following implementation teams to support the ongoing initiatives that flow out of the Technology Enabled Learning Plan. Where teams that are similar to this already exist, it is recommended that they be reviewed in terms of the membership and mandate described below:

1. Software and Digital Repository Advisory Team (SDRAT) In Focus Area #1, membership should include, at a minimum, Superintendent of Education (Student

Services), Superintendent of Education (Curriculum), Principal of Information Services, an Elementary Principal, a representative Learning Coach, a representative School Based Instructional Facilitator (formerly known as the TIL), the Resource Based Learning Coordinator, a Special Education Consultant, a Speech and Language Pathologist, a representative K-3 teacher (for Focus Area #1), a Network Support Specialist. An external Leading and Learning educational consultant, who has experience with similar initiatives in other divisions should sit on this team as a resource to the team. Membership will need to be modified with each new Focus Area implemented.

The mandate for the team should include:

• Creation of standards related to the following software categories, that will support Focus Area #1: (a) Productivity tools, (b) Web 2.0 tools, (c) Curriculum tools and (d) Curriculum software

• A full review of the appropriateness of existing software to identify existing gaps and eliminate unnecessary titles.

• Refinement, testing and sign-off of the appropriate teacher and student image to support the Focus Area.

• Define requirements for a digital repository and online teaching community. This includes researching current ones on the market, and recommend which one best meets the needs of the division.

• For Focus Area #1, populate the digital repository with resources that will support the primary teachers in their RTI’s and PLC’s that are literacy related and provide support for teachers’ instructional practices and for the students in their learning.



Recommendation: Creation of the following implementation teams (continued):

2. Professional Development Advisory Team (PDAT) In Focus Area #1, membership should include, at a minimum, Superintendent of Elementary Curriculum and

Instruction, a Learning Coach, a School Based Instructional Facilitator, a Special Education Consultant, a Speech and Language Pathologist and a primary teacher. An external Leading and Learning educational consultant, who has experience with similar initiatives in other divisions should sit on this team as a Resource to the team. Membership will need to be modified with each new Focus Area implemented.

The mandate for the PDAT should include:

• Review / refinement of the professional development plan recommended later in this report.

• Assessment of the effectiveness of the professional development plan as it is implemented to inform future Professional Development plans and also to inform decisions related to additional professional learning that may be needed.

• Creation of the professional development plan for follow-on Focus Areas.

• Presentation of plans to the Technology Enabled Learning Team and ultimately the executive team for approval of both finances and resources.

3. The Physical Implementation Team The work done by this team will include any installation activities related to infrastructure (i.e. fileservers,

storage devices, electrical, networking components), creation of the device images based on the work of the SDRAT, and installation of devices and peripherals such as LCD projectors and interactive whiteboards.

This will be done by members of the Information Services and Facilities departments as appropriate. An external technical consultant, who has experience with similar initiatives should serve as a resource to this team.



• Implementation Teams

• Technology Enabled Learning

Team

• Executive Team

• Update the mandate of the

Executive Team to own the

Technology Enabled Learning

Plan in Support of the

Continuous Improvement

Framework (CIF), agreeing

on what recommendations

will be adopted. The

Executive Team will be

responsible for revisiting the

WHY statement and ensuring

the selected focus areas

continue to support the CIF.

• The Technology Enabled Learning Team should be charged with the mission of implementing the recommendations in this plan. Their mandate will be to:

• - ensure technology is aligned with the top achievement priorities of the board by ensuring the WHY Vision statement and Focus Areas align with the multi-year strategic plan

• - each decision will be scrutinized to ensure that it addresses the Learning Priorities of the division and the team will ensure that they consider the Total Cost of Ownership as it relates to the specific initiative being considered.

• - create a clearly defined implementation plan for each focus area with goals and success criteria

• - conduct yearly assessments of progress and implement continuous improvement processes to ensure ongoing learnings are incorporated into the plan

• Software and Digital Repository Team

• Membership to include Curriculum and Instruction,

Student Services and Information Services

• Professional Development Advisory Team

• Membership primarily from the Curriculum and Instruction

and Student Services Teams

• Physical Implementation Team • Installation of server, devices

and peripherals such as LCD projectors to be done by

Information Services and School Operations

External Consultant as a resource to the Executive Team and the TELT

External Consultant as a resource to the implementation

teams

Student Groups

School Community Councils

Association Representatives

Ongoing consultation with:


Observation: School and division staff all agreed that the role of the Learning Coaches is critical in supporting teachers in their practices. There is a sense they are currently overloaded with respect to workload, and feedback indicated that additional positions should be put in place or their role be redefined.

Recommendation: Given the dependence of this plan on the Learning Coaches it is recommended that two additional Learning Coaches be hired. This would help to address the issue of how to support teachers beyond the first Focus Area.

Observation: Over $600,000.00 is spent annually on providing in-school support for technology in the form of the Technology Integration Leader (TIL). Feedback from all groups suggested that although this can be a very powerful role, often the TIL spends a considerable amount of their time on break-fix issues versus integration of the technology into the curriculum. Although this investment shows a commitment to the effective use of technology the implementation can be improved. There was consensus that school-based support was critical to the effective use of the technology.

Recommendation: The TIL role should be renamed to School Based Instructional Facilitator (SBIF) to emphasize their role, which is to support teachers in the use of all resources that are available to them to support their instructional practice.

Given the significant change in this role, a formal role description needs to be written and positions at each school filled through an internal application process that is monitored by the Superintendents of Education responsible for Curriculum and Instruction.



Recommendation: The vice principal or principal at each school should be named as the Technology Contact to provide a single point of contact at the school.

The Technology Contact will receive all technology related communications from the division and disseminate it to staff as appropriate.

The principal, vice principal, library tech and secretary should be able to submit tickets to FAME.

The library tech will provide school based technical problem identification, reporting and minor break-fix support.

• Formal training will outline these additional expectations for the Library Tech role and training to support these additional responsibilities will be provided by the Information Services Team. Responsibilities would include fixing printer issues, checking connections, connecting devices to

projectors, helping to download videos, launching software, providing multimedia support, etc.

Entering FAME tickets

• The library tech, with the permission of the school principal, can choose to create a Student Technology Support Team to help them with the break-fix support. This should be a combination of senior students in the school and students from the year below so there is always an experienced group of students to mentor the newest members. Formal training that outlines the expectations for the role, and appropriate behaviour and

responsibilities will be provided by the library tech.

The potential for workplace credit should be explored.



Observation: The Core Team indicated that effective communications was a definite issue in NWSD.

Observation: Teachers, principals and division staff expressed concern over not always knowing what the division priorities were or what initiatives might be underway that would impact them. This was related to initiatives beyond technology. Although there were examples that the message may have been delivered, it was either not clear enough or not reaching all intended audiences via the communication channels being used.

Observation: At the school level, there was an inconsistent policy around staff meetings (some were held weekly, others occurred every 6 to 8 weeks or less), weekly memos, newsletters and emails. There is currently no standard way, other than email, to get a message out to all school staff.

Recommendation: The Director and School Superintendents must expect principals to hold staff meeting at least every other week with clear expectations as to the objectives of the meetings.

Recommendation: Given that communications was cited as one of the division’s biggest challenges, a Communications Officer should be hired who will be responsible for managing and implementing a strong communications plan for the Technology Enabled Learning Plan and all other division initiatives.

Recommendation: A communication plan pertaining to NWSD’s Technology Enabled Learning Plan must be developed immediately and must include:

The Why statement and Focus Areas of the plan.

A description of the framework components that will be implemented to support the specific Focus Areas being implemented in addition to a description of the remaining access that all students and teachers can expect to find at their school.

The communication plan must reinforce and clearly describe how this plan aligns with, and is in support of, the Continuous Improvement Framework. It must also be clearly communicated that the Technology Enabled Learning Plan will be updated annually to maintain this alignment.

Observations and Recommendations:Division Commitment – Communications


Recommendation: The communication plan for the Technology Enabled Learning Plan must embrace multiple channels for the various messages, i.e. email, newsletters, staff meetings, websites

Recommendation: The message that is delivered across all formats must be clear, concise and consistent. It should be:

Scripted if it is being delivered orally so that the message cannot be miscommunicated

Appeal to all stakeholders, including:• What the impact to them will be• This is not ANOTHER thing – it is a resource to support student learning • Must be non-threatening, and should anticipate varied reactions to it

Recommendation: Senior staff, principals/vice principals, division support staff and representatives from various associations and unions should all understand this plan, be committed to it and be expected to be able to deliver a consistent message that demonstrates to their constituents the importance and significance of the plan to them.

Recommendation: The communication plan should be owned by the Communications Officer and the Technology Enabled Learning Team. The Communications Officer will provide updates on the Communication Plan to the Educational Technology Learning Team (which they are a member of) as a standing agenda item at their regular meetings to ensure it continues to reflect the current status of the implementation plan.

Recommendation: The communication matrix shown on the following pages is recommended. It should be owned by the Communications Officer and the Technology Enabled Learning Team (TELT). It should be refined and implemented as early as possible once the executive team and Board has approved the overall plan. The early objectives of the communication plan will be to provide awareness and to create support for the plan as it moves through the budget process.

Recommendations:Division Commitment – Communications


Message From: Message To: Communication Vehicle Timing of

Communication Message Content

Director All stakeholders (including trustees, division senior staff, principals, teachers, students, parents and the general public)

Initial presentation at the board meeting; ongoing updates at board meetings should continue over the years

Presentation at the annual Convention to all staff

Presentation at a division office meeting to all staff

An official launch on the division website with a recorded message from the director; push this recording out to all school websites.

Electronic newsletter, that can be posted on the division and school websites, emailed to all division staff, and printed and made accessible in the board office and in all school offices

Along with the HR Superintendent, meet with Union/Association reps to explain the project

Presentation to the Parent Involvement Committee with a presentation and script for them to deliver to the parents at their school

• Initial communications prior to official launch and during first few months

The original communications should include: The Why statement and Focus Areas

of the plan A description of the framework

components that will be implemented to support the specific focus areas being implemented in addition to a description of the base infrastructure and access that all students and teachers can expect to find at their school

Clear explanation of current bandwidth issues that exist and what each person must be aware of in terms of their impact on the bandwidth (i.e. what happens when they stream video, how can they minimize their impact on the school and the division)

A description of ‘kids today’ and what the changing classroom and learning experience looks like

A disclaimer that this plan is in support of the multi-year strategic plan and will be updated on an on-going basis to ensure it continue to align with the multi-year strategic plan

Recommendations:Division Commitment – Communication Plan




Director All stakeholders (including trustees, division senior staff, principals, teachers, students, parents and the general public)

Electronic newsletter, that can be posted on the division and school websites, emailed to all division staff, and printed and made accessible in the board office and in all school offices

• Blog or Video Log (Vlog) could be used on a monthly basis to provide ongoing information pertaining to key initiatives. To gauge interest and engagement, provide a monthly ‘call to action’ with a simple poll to gather opinions/feedback on a specific component of the plan.

• School websites should be automatically updated with division communications to ensure ongoing communication updates related to the initiative

Ongoing Twitter feeds with updates on progress

Facebook

• Ongoing updates; minimum monthly

Restate the Why statement in all updates, Ongoing communications should provide updates on

progress of implementation, highlight successes, teacher and student testimonials, initiative assessment data as it becomes available

Updates on changes in plan / Focus Areas, etc. Continued explanation of current bandwidth issues

that exist and what each person must be aware of in terms of their impact on the bandwidth (i.e. what happens when they stream video, how can they minimize their impact on the school and the division)

Director Principals and teachers

Standard, scripted email messages • Ongoing Description of the initiative and ongoing updates on progress and successes should continue over the years

Executive Team Board • Initial presentation of report and recommendations for their approval at the board meeting

• Status update presentations at ongoing board meetings

• Two to three times a year

• Initial presentation should be a review of the report and obtaining of their approval to move forward with the recommendations

• Ongoing meetings: • Status of implementation • Feedback from students, teachers and principals • Update on assessment of success criteria as it is

gathered

40



Message From: Message To: Communication Vehicle Timing of Communication Message Content

Superintendents of Education, Technology, and Elementary Curriculum and Instruction (with assistance from members of Technology Enabled Learning Team (TELT))

All principals and supporting Division staff (i.e. Learning Coaches, SLP’s, OT’s, Special Education Consultant, RBL Coordinator, etc.)

Presentation to Principals with a presentation and script for them to deliver to their staff

Presentation and script should be provided to supporting division staff so they have a common message they can use with teachers and school staff

• Initial communications prior to official launch

• Ongoing updates

The scripted presentation should include: The Why statement and Focus Areas s of the plan A description of the framework components that will be

implemented to support the specific focus areas being implemented in addition to a description of the base infrastructure and access that all students and teachers can expect to find at their school

Clear explanation of current bandwidth issues that exist and what each person must be aware of in terms of their impact on the bandwidth (i.e. what happens when they stream video, how can they minimize their impact on the school and the division)



Ongoing updates on progress and successes should continue over the years

Superintendents of Schools/ Technology, and Superintendent of Elementary Curriculum and Instruction with assistance from TELT team

All principals • Threaded discussion database to allow teachers and principals to discuss successes and challenges

• Twitter feeds on progress/highlights

• Ongoing in each Division Principals meeting

• Moderated by the Superintendents, this would be a venue for all staff to discuss successes, challenges, ask questions, provide peer support

• Celebrate successes and highlight exemplary practice through testimonials, video clips, etc.

Superintendent of each school in coordination with the school principal

All school staff • Presentation at the first or second staff meeting of the year

• Initial launch The Why statement and Focus Areas of the plan A description of the framework components that will be

implemented to support the specific focus areas being implemented in addition to a description of the base infrastructure and access that all students and teachers can expect to find at their school (


Continued discussion of bandwidth issues A disclaimer that this plan is in support of the multi-year strategic

plan and will be updated on an on-going basis to ensure it continue to align with the multi-year strategic plan

41





Superintendent of HR

Associations /Unions • Meetings• Memos

• September• Ongoing dialogue

The Why statement and Focus Areas of the plan A description of the framework components that will be




• Review of principal communication package• Ongoing progress updates

Superintendent of Education, Technology and Principal of Information Services

All Division Staff • Division Website• Memos / email • Twitter feeds

• Ongoing • Describe the support to be provided to all teachers and support that may be unique to the Focus Area

• include a description of the new role of the TIL now called the School Based Instructional Facilitator

• Describe the role the Library Tech will play in providing school based technical problem identification, reporting and minor break-fix support.

• Describe the problem reporting process (FAME ticket submission)

• Describe Educational Technology investment guidelines and how they will be aligned to the Focus Areas of the Why statement

• Clear explanation of current bandwidth issues that exist and what each person must be aware of in terms of their impact on the bandwidth (i.e. what happens when they stream video, how can they minimize their impact on the school and the division)

• Describe the process to have software / digital resources reviewed for potential Division adoption

42





Principals All staff in schools • Staff meetings • School Improvement Plan• Teacher Plans • Book/article club readings• Standard, scripted presentation

with / without audio recording• Threaded discussion database to

allow teachers and principals to discuss successes and challenges

• PLC’s,

• Prior to project launch

• Ongoing dialogue / discussions

Continued focus on the Why statement and Focus Areas of the plan

A description of the framework components that will be implemented to support the specific focus areas being implemented in addition to a description of the base infrastructure and access that all students and teachers can expect to find at their school

Ongoing dialogue about ‘kids today’ and what the changing classroom and learning experience looks like

Ongoing discussion about current bandwidth issues that exist and what each person must be aware of in terms of their impact on the bandwidth (i.e. what happens when they stream video, how can they minimize their impact on the school and the division)

Ongoing progress updates

Principals Parents and students • School website• School assemblies • Automated messages via

phonemail, email or text (i.e. through Synervoice)

• School newsletter• Teacher newsletter • Presentation to School Community

Councils • Dear parent/guardian letters that go

home• At fundraising events • Twitter feeds • Facebook

• Prior to project launch

• Ongoing dialogue / discussions

The Why statement and Focus Areas of the plan A description of the framework components that will be



Discussion about current bandwidth issues that exist and what each person must be aware of in terms of their impact on the bandwidth (i.e. what happens when they stream video, how can they minimize their impact on the school and the division)


• Ongoing progress updates

43






Learning Coaches School Based Instructional Facilitators, Principals, VPs, Division Support staff (SLP’s, OT’s, Special Education Consultant, RBL Coordinator, etc.)

• Face to face • Email • Twitter feeds • Online collaboration space

• Ongoing • Provide an update on the initiative in all orientation sessions and professional development sessions

Learning Coaches School staff • Face to face coaching and mentoring (co-construct, co-teach)

• Email • Twitter • PLC/RTI


School Based Instructional Facilitators (formerly known as TILs)

School Staff • Face to face coaching and mentoring (co-construct, co-teach)

• Email • Twitter • PLC/RTI


Teachers Students • Classroom discussion • September and ongoing

• Acceptable use for all school technology • Digital citizenship • Ongoing discussion of current bandwidth issues that exist and

what each person must be aware of in terms of their impact on the bandwidth (i.e. what happens when they stream video, how can they minimize their impact on the school and the division)

• Classroom management strategies for devices in the classrooms

Teachers Parents • Teacher Website• Parent night • Twitter feed to parents/students

• September and ongoing

A description of the project and classes impacted in Focus Area #1 (the components that will be implemented to support the specific focus area) in addition to a description of the base infrastructure and access that all students and teachers can expect to find at their school

Impact on the classroom / how it is being used to impact the learning experience





IT Manager IT Staff • IT Department meetings • September / ongoing

The Why statement and Focus Areas of the plan A description of the framework components that will

be implemented to support the specific focus areas being implemented in addition to a description of the base infrastructure and access that all students and teachers can expect to find at their school

Discussion of current bandwidth issues that exist and what each person must be aware of in terms of their impact on the bandwidth (i.e. what happens when they stream video, how can they minimize their impact on the school and the division)

• Clear understanding of support commitments they are making

• Support requirements / service level agreement for infrastructure components

• Discussion of successes / challenges

IT Manager All staff • Memo • Board website • Twitter

• September / ongoing

• Implementation plans and progress updates for supporting infrastructure and teacher and student access components


Observations and Recommendations: Division Commitment – Expectations of Use

Observation: Stakeholders, when asked if there are clearly articulated expectations of use were divided on this. In discussions with members of the Core Team, it was felt that the expectations that staff were referring to are those in the Acceptable Use Policy that students and staff should sign on a yearly basis. These do not define when and how technology is expected to be used but rather deals with inappropriate use.

Observation: Reviewing and signing of the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) by staff and students was inconsistent from school to school and at the division office.

Recommendation: The current Acceptable Use Policy must be updated to reflect current issues that the division may encounter such as access for wireless devices, if and how personal electronic devices can be used in school by both staff and students, inappropriate uses of division owned and personal devices, digital citizenship, etc.

Recommendation: Once revised, the AUP must be implemented consistently across the division.

Recommendation: Beyond the Acceptable Use Policy, there should be a universal expectation of use – by all division leaders and principals – that all educators are expected to use the technology-based resources provided by the division. This includes an expectation that they will embrace the technology provided for them and their students, as well as the software and digital resources – to be used when and where appropriate as another valuable resourcing in the teaching and learning process for literacy and numeracy.

46




Sustainability


Does the plan and use of educational technology promote equitable outcomes? Based on the division educational priorities (Focus Areas) Equitable access is not the goal – equitable outcomes are the goal

Budget related: Is your model replicable from a budget perspective? Can you afford to replicate it (vs. just having pilots or pockets of excellence?) Does it conform to the principles of Total Cost of Ownership which minimizes the overall total cost

over the life of the investment and not just the initial purchase price? Do you have a perpetual refresh strategy? A “forever” commitment that ensures budget will be

protected each year to fund and replace outdated components. Is it viewed as a mandatory utility like electricity?

Sustainable Leadership: Can it withstand changes in the leadership team?

Is it a true change initiative (and not just a single event or project) Minimum of five years to become part of the fabric of how you “do business” Multi-year communication plan ensures ongoing commitment

Assessment: Do you perform yearly audits and engage in continuous process improvements?

48

Best Practices: Sustainability


Observation: Division funds for technology purchases are adequate and are being used to provide the infrastructure and a good (above average) computer to student ratio (i.e. approx. 1:3).

Observation: Teachers, principals and division staff indicated that the amount of access for teachers and students is adequate yet they still report that students, on average, only use technology a few times a week or less. It was felt this is primarily due to lack of understanding of how to embed the technology into the teaching and learning experience (attributed to a lack of time and professional development opportunities), a lack of awareness of effective digital resources and limited bandwidth.

Observation: There has been no formal link between the investment in educational technology and the division’s achievement priorities. Although it does appear as a section in the Continuous Improvement Framework, (Achievement Priority Goal #4, Continue efforts to integrate technology into classrooms) this goal is not specifically related to the earlier stated achievement priorities but rather as a goal on its own.

Recommendation: Adopt and implement this Technology Enabled Learning Plan in a multi-year, sustainable way:

With the creation of a clear Why statement, and clear Focus Areas based on the learning priorities identified in the Continuous Improvement Framework, and by attending to all components of the framework, the financial and human resource requirements can be estimated and planned for in the budget.

Articulate expectations of use for technology especially with respect to the Focus Areas. Teachers and division staff must embrace it when and where appropriate.

If it is determined that a Focus Area cannot be sustained, the Focus Areas must be modified to ensure NWSD does less but does it right.

Observations and Recommendations:Sustainability


Recommendation: NWSD must continue to commit to an ongoing sustained budget for educational technology in order to support the recommendations in this plan. This must be done at both the executive team level and Board level. The budget provided in this plan takes a “perpetual view” and shows the ongoing budget required for all components. While the timing of these components can be altered to fit human capacity, and the age of certain components, the ultimate budget amounts shown will be ongoing (i.e. perpetual).

Observation: There were investments made in “new” technologies that did not deliver the expected results. Often people are keen to purchase “the newest” device without a clear vision of how to integrated it into the classroom.

Recommendation: As new technologies become available, there will be a push by certain principals and teachers to embrace them. These will need to be investigated and considered for implementation in order that the technology used in teaching and learning remains relevant and current. This investigation must be done using the WHY statement and educational Focus Areas as the “compass” and guiding principle. This will ensure the investigations will be relevant to the teacher and learning Focus Area – and not become a technology or “gadget focused” investigation. These “investigations” should be conducted by the Technology Enabled Learning Team in support of this plan and monitored for success.

Observations and Recommendations: Sustainability


Observation: Although there were pockets of successful educational technology projects underway in NWSD, they tended to be isolated and were not typically monitored for success. In addition, there was no formal process to share lessons learned and expertise based on these isolated projects.

Recommendation: Ongoing assessment and yearly audits are required for continuous process improvement.

Both objective and subjective data must be gathered, analyzed and acted upon. Assessment instruments should include surveys and other data collection tools which will enable the division to understand the changing needs, and changing requirements of various components.

Recommendation: The following objective measures are recommended for Focus Area #1: Literacy screens EYE ITA Report Card data

• Especially as the division moves to outcomes based report cards, it will be easier to see the impact on specific outcomes such as reading, writing, media literacy, etc.

As the Learning Skills are reported on, these can also be monitored Fountas and Pinnell should be mandatory in all schools

NOTE: When the draft report was presented to the Core Team, discussion ensued regarding when the new report card would be implemented and whether or not it can be used as one measure of success. The team agreed that the outcomes based report card would be available for K-3 teachers to use in September 2013 and that for the first year, the schools should be given the choice to use it. For those schools that do use it, data from these report cards will be considered in the assessment process for Focus Area #1.

Observations and Recommendations: Sustainability


Recommendation: The following subjective measures are recommended for Focus Area #1:

Student Engagement: Student surveys and interviews/focus groups throughout the life of the project to assess the impact on the

learning experience• Use the Ministry tool coming in March 2013, Tell Them For Me, for these surveys

Student journals Parent / Teacher surveys to measure engagement of students

Teacher / Staff Capacity: Teacher journals Attitudinal surveys are to be administered prior to starting the project and at checkpoints throughout the life

of the project• Impact on the teaching and learning experience • Comfort with technology • Ability to embed in their practice • Increased use of 21st C teaching practices• For example:

Survey Pre and Post: How extensively are the Learning Coaches, TILs (School Based Instructional Facilitator), and Principals who are supporting Focus Area #1 K-3 Literacy , using literacy technology-based resources in the work they do with teachers?

Survey Pre and Post: Are teachers using digital literacy resources as part of their regular teaching practice and are students using these resources as they explore, investigate and build their understanding of concepts in these areas?

Observation Pre and Post: Do School Improvement Plans, focused on improving achievement in the areas of literacy (primary) clearly reflect how technology is supporting these goals and describe how teachers and students will use these resources?

Observation Ongoing: Do Principals observe that technology is being used in the Primary Literacy block on a regular basis? Observation and Focus Groups: Do students report that they are using technology as an integral part of their Primary Literacy

block and can provide examples of where it has been used in the classroom to help them to improve their achievements in literacy?

52

Recommendations: Sustainability


Recommendation: Other measures should include: Teachers and principals are encouraged to maintain journals where they can record observational

examples of effective use. Principals and Superintendents are encouraged to use effective use observational tools when

they do school walk-throughs. “Application utilization tracking software” should be used to indicate if the software resources that

have been identified as being effective in Primary Literacy are being used on a regular basis. Technology usage tracking tools should measure whether the devices are being turned on and

connected to the network. Technology reliability and support statistics should be gathered through FAME and informal

feedback.

Recommendation: The assessment plan should be owned by the Technology Enabled Learning Team

Recommendation: Measures of success are defined in this plan for the initial Focus Area. Similar measures must also be identified for future Focus Areas.

Recommendation: The executive team should personally revisit the Why statement on an annual basis and engage in a rich dialogue to ensure the Focus Areas continue to align to the top priorities of the division, as outlined in the Continuous Improvement Framework. This will help to ensure that all leaders in the division understand why technology is being invested in and build leadership capacity that will help to sustain this vision as changes in the team occur.

Recommendations: Sustainability




Teacher Access


Best Practices - Teacher Access Teachers need access whenever and wherever they are planning, teaching,

learning or doing administrative tasks. As such each teacher requires a portable/mobile computer to enable this anywhere, anytime access.

Having a personal device facilitates their basic comfort with technology, which is an essential prerequisite to embracing and embedding it in the teaching and learning process.

To truly embrace and embed technology in the teaching and learning process it must be available for use in whole group, small group and individual instruction when and where appropriate.

Teacher access must be reliable and deliver acceptable performance.

The more dependable, consistent and readily available teacher access is, the better.

Provide appropriate peripherals in the classroom:• An projector is essential for effective whole group instruction.• Research indicates a fixed projector is more likely to be embedded in a teacher’s practice (than a

portable one) because it is more readily available as a fixture in the classroom. • Interactive whiteboards are effective devices for teacher and student access. However best

practices suggest that all teachers should have the basic access provided by a laptop and a projector, before interactive whiteboards are then implemented.

55


Observation: When presented with a choice between a (properly working) desktop or mobile computer virtually all preferred mobile. In the discussion if was felt that in order for NWSD teachers to truly embed technology in the teaching and learning process each teacher needed to be provided with their own personal, portable laptop computer. This was especially important for teachers who are currently less comfortable with technology – as having their own device would allow them the opportunity to develop this basic comfort level. There was also a general observation that school divisions are one of the last sectors in society today that do not provide each of their professionals (i.e. teachers) with a current generation, portable device to do their job.

There was a recognition that providing teachers with a mobile device may create some initial resistance or reservations, because of difficulties encountered with previous rollouts of laptops. Issues stated included: server connectivity, wireless connectivity, size of the laptop, currency of the model and ease of connecting to peripherals.

There was also a concern expressed that the laptops would not be used to their full potential if the rest of framework was not truly delivered by the division (i.e. necessary software, comprehensive PD, etc.). i.e. it would revert to being used for word processing and internet searching and not truly being integrated into the teaching and learning process.

Observations: Teacher Access


Summary of Teacher Access Recommendations:NWSD will provide:

each teacher with a laptop computer and a docking station each classroom with a mounted projector (most are already in place), a place or screen to project onto, and speakers in each classroom.

In addition, the teacher mobile laptops must: be able to get on the wired network in each classroom, or on the wireless network wherever

available in the school or central office, have access to any web-based resource (recognizing the performance restrictions due to

limited bandwidth), be able to print, be able to access the board network when connected to the wired network, to access all board

resources available there, and be able to install any software.

Recommendations: Teacher Access


Recommendation: Based on current best practices in the industry and our experience with divisions, teachers need access whenever and wherever they are planning, teaching, learning or doing administrative tasks. To provide this access a full function laptop computer is recommended for all classroom teachers. It is our experience the once teachers are given a portable device of their own, and encouraged to use it for both appropriate personal and professional purposes, their level of comfort with technology use in general, improves dramatically. This is especially true for those teachers that have been somewhat reluctant to use technology in the teaching and learning process because of their own personal lack of comfort with it. The percentage of teachers who fall into this group typically represent from 40% to 60% of all teachers in a division. It is also important to note that until this fundamental discomfort is addressed, additional investments in teacher PD will be less effective, and devices for student access will be underutilized.

While these teacher devices could be rolled out to various grades as they became a Focus Area, we recommend rolling these out division-wide to all teachers as soon as possible. While only those devices in a Focus Area would be used to their full potential, the increased comfort level for all teachers will pay dividends when those teachers are involved in future Focus Areas.

Recommendation: All previous issues related to connectivity, size and currency of the model, must be resolved and tested before the devices are rolled out to avoid the barriers encountered with previous laptop rollouts. In addition to resolving any technical issues that contributed to these issues, we are recommending a docking station for each teacher or staff laptop, which will minimize issues related to connecting to wired networks, printers and other peripherals.

Recommendations: Teacher Access


Recommendation: Teachers must be allowed to load personal software that they are legally licensed for, and data (no inappropriate items) on their laptops. Teachers (especially reluctant users) are to be encouraged to use it for personal reasons, hobbies, etc. Appropriate Use guidelines for teachers should explicitly address what is and is not acceptable.

Teachers are to be personally responsible for backing up any such personal items. NWSD should not bear any of the responsibility for supporting these personal items. Teachers should clearly understand that if there are problems with the laptop, the division will erase everything on the device, and only restored the NWSD items back to the original software image, and not their personal items.

Observation: A projector dramatically expands the potential usages and benefits of the teacher laptop. The division has provided a projector for most, but not all, classrooms. Recommendation: We recommend that the division provide all elementary and secondary classrooms (i.e. teaching spaces) with a projector – so effectively all teachers will have one. Recommendation: We recommend that projectors in classrooms should be mounted. To the degree that the projectors can be mounted, and therefore always available and dependable, research indicates they will be more often, and more effectively use.

Observations and Recommendations: Teacher Access


Recommendation: In order to be able to model how the teacher laptops are to be embraced and embedded in the teaching and learning process, and demonstrate commitment to the overall plan, we recommend all instructional leaders in the division also be provided with a full function laptop. This includes Principals and Vice Principals, as well as division-level or school-level program/curriculum staff. As such the budget analysis has included laptops and docking stations for these groups.

Recommendation: We also feel it is very important and beneficial for devices to be provided for all other “support” teachers and staff. The budget provided includes laptops and docking stations for these individuals in the division as well. However, for some of these staff members, (i.e. secretaries) a desktop computer may be preferred. If the division decides to provide desktops, the budget will have to be revised, and as a result will go down slightly.

NOTE: The recommended model for teacher (and student) access in the first Focus Area is graphically illustrated in the Student Access section of this report.

Recommendations: Teacher Access – Principals and Other Staff




Student Access


Best Practices – Student Access

The most basic prerequisite for student access is that whatever devices are provided, or available, they must be current and powerful enough to deliver an acceptable level of performance and reliability.

Sufficient access for students must be provided wherever and whenever learning happens

• Location: At the point of instruction – so usage is timely, convenient, and available for teachable moments.

• Quantity: Enough devices so that at least 1/3 of the students can be using the technology at the same time with 2 students per device. Students working collaboratively in pairs, on a single device, is recommended according to most research. Less devices than this does not provide enough access for them to be purposefully embedded in the teaching and learning process. Occasional access to additional devices is needed for those activities where a higher student to computer ratio of 2:1 or 1:1 is required (i.e. eLearning).

62


Best Practices – Student Access

• Deployment Model: Research indicates that a pod of devices (portable or fixed) that is permanently available in the classroom will better allow a teacher to consistently embed it into the teaching and learning process. While carts allow flexibility when additional devices are required they require more management (i.e. scheduling, charging, etc.) which could potentially reduce their effective use.

Purpose of Student Access• For small or individual instruction or exploration of a concept• Allows authoring and creation of multimedia student work for demonstration of

knowledge• Enables activities such as research, word processing, assessment, etc. when

appropriate

Explicitly Stated Expectations for Use and Support Guidelines

Embrace Student Provided Devices • Have an appropriate device deployment model by division• For more senior grades (typically Grade 7 and above) embrace student provided devices when and where

appropriate.

63


Observation: As stated in the best practices portion of this section, the most basic prerequisite for student access is that whatever devices are provided, or available, must be current and powerful enough to deliver an acceptable level of performance and reliability. Equally important, the network (and all its interdependent pieces) must be fast enough overall to deliver whatever is required by the user, in a reasonable amount of time.

The feedback that we received was that the devices that were available for student access were, for the most part, current enough and fast enough to deliver acceptable performance. As far as the quantity of computers available for students NWSD is actually well above national averages – meaning there appears to be enough devices available for student access. The feedback was mixed regarding the location of the devices. While most felt the location was acceptable, when presented with the alternative of having the computers actually in the classroom on a permanent basis, the clear consensus was that having them in the classroom would be preferred.

Regarding the network speed, the feedback was that the performance for the network within the school was quite acceptable. (i.e. launching software or retrieving data from the server within the school). However, the speed of the network outside the school, i.e. from a school to other locations in the division, or to the Internet, was consistently reported to be unacceptable. This was attributed to the relatively limited bandwidth (speed) of the current network beyond the walls of a school.

Another common frustration was in how “locked down” the devices were in the schools. Certain teachers would like the ability to add additional software titles to the student machines, and they currently are not able to do that.

Observations and Recommendations: Student Access – Overall


Recommendation: We recommend the following student access in each K to Gr 3 classroom:

Enough devices so that 1/3 of the K to Gr 3 students in the class, working in pairs at each machine, can be using the technology at any one time. For example, from an instructional strategy perspective, this would typically allow 1/3 of the students to work independently, 1/3 of the students to work collaboratively on the technology, and the final 1/3 of the students could be engaged in small group instruction with the teacher. This is the best practices balance between affordability, and having enough devices to allow the teacher to integrate them into the teaching and learning practice in a meaningful way.

Depending on the number of K to Gr 3 students in the classroom, that means the following number of computers are recommended:

• 18 students or less = 3 computers• 19 to 24 students = 4 computers• 25 or more students = 5 computers

Each device should be a portable computer so that it can be moved around the classroom to facilitate group work as appropriate. The recommended device is an entry-level laptop. (Example: screen size of at least 13” and minimum 6 hour battery life).

Observations and Recommendations: Student Access – Focus Area #1


Recommendation: A small charging and storing/locking cabinet capable of containing 8 devices is also recommended for each classroom.

As a transitional alternative, a laptop cart permanently located just outside the K to Gr 3 classrooms, could serve as the overnight storage and charging unit serving all the K to Gr 3 classrooms. In this case, each morning the required number of computers (3, 4 or 5) would be moved into each of the K to Gr 3 classrooms, for usage throughout the day. And returned to the cart at the end of the day. If this transition plan is adopted, we further recommend that decals or labels are placed on each laptop identifying which class it “belongs” to – so that every day each K to Gr 3 class gets the same number of computers (and actually the same actual devices) for their pod.

Observations and Recommendations: Student Access – Focus Area #1


Graphical Representation of Student and Teacher Access for Initial Focus Area

NOTE: Infrastructure prerequisite – Network drops or wireless access, power outlet(s) and suitable bandwidth is required.

Teacher Laptop with Docking

Station

Mounted Projector

Screen

Student Access provided via 3 to 5 portable classroom

devices

NOTE: In addition to the Student and Teacher access shown, the other effective use components such as software to address literacy expectations ,

Web 2.0 tools, productivity software and comprehensive PD are also required.

Speakers

Charging and storage unit for student portable classroom

devices

Grade K to 3 Classrooms

http://www.gadgitz.com/shop/item1053.htm


Recommendation: Over time, based on the best practices balance between affordability and providing enough student devices for purposeful integration, all classrooms should have the same amount of access, or slightly more due to larger class sizes in the higher grades, as we have recommended for the initial Focus Area. However to ensure this investment in student access computers is used effectively, we recommend that the devices for grades not in the first Focus Area, do not get rolled out until those future Focus Areas begin. At that time whichever grades are in the next Focus Area – they would receive not only the devices for student access, but also on all the other components of the IBM Framework (such as appropriate software, professional development, etc.).

Based on the above plan we have provided a high level budget analysis for not just the student access required in the first Focus Area, but also what it would cost for the division to eventually provide student access for all grades. Once a grade is in a Focus Area, they would receive the pod of computers for their classrooms. Based on the larger class sizes in Grades 4-12, we recommend they receive a ratio of 4:1 (1 computer for every 4 students). Depending on the class size that means the following number of computers are recommended:

16 students or less = 4 computers (minimum of 4 computers in any grade 4 to 12 classroom) 17 to 20 students = 5 computers 21 to 24 = 6 computers 25 or more students = 7 computers

In the meantime, for grades not in a current Focus Area, we recommend NWSD retain the current model in place for student access. This involves a combination of the current labs and/or carts that are in various schools.

Observations and Recommendations: Student Access – For Grades Not in First Focus Area


Subject-Specific Computer Labs Recommendation: For computer labs dedicated to specific subjects and courses (i.e. typically high school comm/tech, computer studies, business studies, etc.) we recommend maintaining the current level of access. Theses labs are appropriate for these subjects and courses because the lab is where the learning actually happens on an ongoing basis – so the devices are at the point of instruction, and one computer per student is clearly required. The recommended device is a desktop computer and monitor because there is little or no need to move these devices around, and as such the desktop provides a more powerful, reliable device for less money than mobile alternatives. Desktops are also easier to support because they can be plugged into power and the network, and because there is less chance of damage simply because the device is not moved around. In addition they have a useful life of 5 years (vs. 4 years for mobile devices) and as such the budget for these devices has assumed they are leased on a 5 year term, and refreshed every 5 years.

It is estimated there are 43 labs currently in the division. We have assumed that 20 of these are needed to serve the computer-specific courses in the higher grades. Based on each of these 20 labs having 30 devices, we have included them in our budget analysis – each on a 5 year lease term and refresh cycle.

Observations and Recommendations: Student Access – For Subject-Specific Labs


Observation: A clear consensus amongst stakeholders was that student access in a 21st century learning environment should embrace and encourage student owned devices. This was not to replace division-provided devices, but rather to complement them.

Recommendation: For most divisions in Canada we recommend that students in grades 9 to 12 (and potentially Grades 7 and 8 as well) are to be encouraged to bring in their own device. These would include smart phones (cell phones which are WI FI capable), WI FI capable audio and video player devices (i.e. iPods), mobile computers and tablets. Initially these devices would connect to the guest wireless, and would enable students to individually do research (browse the internet), work on creating reports, authoring content for demonstration of knowledge, and homework.

However, due to the limited bandwidth environment at NWSD adding additional personal devices to the network at this time is not recommended. In our experience, personal devices add significant additional Internet-dependent workload which would very likely overload the existing network capacity.

Consideration could be given to encouraging personal devices into the classroom for non-network dependent work such as report writing, content authoring and demonstration of knowledge. But due to the high public profile, and complexity of implementing BYOD, especially in limited-bandwidth environments like NWSD, we recommend a more comprehensive analysis is done in this area before moving forward. We have provided a brief overview of things to consider on the following pages.

Observation: All stakeholders agreed that if, and when, students are encouraged to bring in their own devices, division-provided devices must be provided for students who are not able to do so.

Recommendation: When a school or classroom teacher allows students to bring in their own devices the pods of division provided devices available in each classroom, will be used to provide access for students who are not able to bring in their own device. This is to ensure EQUITY of access for all students.

Observations and Recommendations: Student Access – Student Owned Devices


“Technology can enable transforming education but only if we commit to the change that it will bring to our education system. For example, students come to school with mobile devices that let them carry the Internet in their pockets and

search the web for the answers to test questions. Is this cheating, or with such ubiquitous access to information is it time to change what and how we teach? Similarly, do we ignore the informal learning enabled by technology outside

school, or do we create equally engaging and relevant experiences inside school and blend the two?”- National Educational Technology Plan 2010, March 5, 2010, Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education

In order to enable students to bring in their own devices there are a number of factors that must be considered and addressed, including:

Recommendation: Define what grades BYOD will be supported at. It is recommended that consideration be given first to secondary grades 9 through 12. Once these are running smoothly, consideration can be given to the more senior elementary grades such as 7 and 8.

Recommendation: A comprehensive analysis to define the BYOD program in detail is recommended, built against the IBM Educational Technology Framework. Membership for the engagement should include: Representative teachers and students from the involved grades, IT, SO’s, Program/Curriculum staff, principals and a teacher/librarian.

Recommendation: Essential infrastructure components must be provided such as power charging outlets and locking stations located in common areas (i.e. library, gymnasium change rooms, front foyer, etc.), and typically – wireless access points – however for non-network dependent work these are not required.

Recommendation: If, and when, network access is contemplated, monitoring of the performance of the LAN and WAN as the BYOD program grows will be essential to ensure that the service being provided is adequate. Bandwidth shaping and optimization will likely be required as adoption increases.




Observation: Current NWSD documents related to end user procedures and policies do not clearly define when, where and why personal student owned devices can be used at school.

Recommendation: Develop and communicate clear guidelines. Update the acceptable and responsible use policies to include personal owned devices. These guidelines should define:

What type of devices students can bring and use at school When and how they can use them What they will have access to with respect to software, internet, printers, etc. How will they secure them How / when / where they will be able to charge them

Recommendation: Be clear that the BYOD program is not intended to reduce the number of devices the division will need to provide for student access – it simply provides incremental access.

Observation: Teachers also have specific needs that must be addressed in order for them to take full advantage of these student devices for teaching and learning.

Recommendation: The division must provide clear guidelines, and provide Professional Development for teachers in each of the following areas:

how to take advantage of these devices by showing them the benefits and what is possible. time and opportunity to develop the skills needed to take advantage of the devices. address potential concerns such as how to control use and how to ensure appropriate use, including what to

look for and what to do in case of misuse. help identify software resources that link with curriculum expectations and that will work on varied devices. utilize teaching strategies (based on Bloom’s) to help teachers develop student activities/tasks that bring

curriculum objectives and digital resources together. model effective assessment tools to evaluate students’ work. provide teachers with management procedures that give students responsibility for their own learning in a

classroom where technology is at the point of instruction

72



As the division begins to rely on these devices to supplement the devices supplied by the division, it will be imperative to monitor the program to ensure it succeeds.

Recommendation: Listen to concerns of staff, student and parents through focus groups, surveys and other feedback channels throughout each year.

Recommendation: Success criteria must be defined for this program. Sample criteria may include:

the number (percentage) of students bringing in devices the types of devices being brought to school how do students want to use them, and how are they being used (inside and outside of

class) verifying the number of board supplied student devices are providing equity for

disadvantaged students how are these devices being used in teaching and learning what is the level of student, parent and staff satisfaction, and why what challenges of barriers are teachers, administrators and other staff encountering and

what PD is still required. improvements in student achievement and student engagement

73




Software


Must support educational priorities of the division Helps a teacher address multiple learning styles and higher order thinking skills Supports differentiated instruction

4 Categories:

1. Standard, supported, Web 2.0 tools are available for use by teachers and students to address the 21st century needs of the classroom, such as:

Collaborative: Google Apps; Wiki; Blog; Vlog; Social Networking: Twitter, Facebook

2. Curriculum courseware that supports differentiated instruction, higher order thinking skills, enabling teachers to teach, and students to explore, concepts in unique ways and correlated to provincial expectations

3. Standard Curriculum tools (i.e. Geometer’s Sketchpad, Gizmos), correlated to Provincial expectations

4. Standard and supported productivity tools (word processing, presentation software, etc.)

Best Practices: Software


These recommendations establish the processes and protocols for maintaining and upgrading the division’s system-wide software standards, while providing equitable access to software resources that have the greatest potential to positively impact student achievement. Since software costs can be significant, and the installation of software has the potential to impact the division’s technology users, the security of the division’s data, and the stability of established applications, steps must be taken to ensure: the expenditure of limited financial and human resources delivers the greatest impact on learning; the integrity of the division’s computer networks and data is maintained; and there is equitable access throughout the division.

Recommendation: As recommended in the Division Commitment section of this report, NWSD should form a Software and Digital Resources Advisory Team (SDRAT) that reports to the Technology Enabled Learning Team.

The mandate for the team should include:• Creation of standards related to the following software categories, that will initially support Focus Area #1:

(a) Productivity tools, (b) Web 2.0 tools, (c) Curriculum tools and (d) Curriculum software. Note: For the first Focus Area, Primary Literacy, the Curriculum Tools category will not be addressed as these tools can

be provided through the Web 2.0 category and/or the Productivity Tools category. This should be more closely examined for other Focus Areas.

• A full review of the appropriateness of existing software to identify existing gaps and eliminate unnecessary titles.

• Refinement, testing and sign-off of the appropriate teacher and student image to support the Focus Area.• Define requirements for a digital repository and online teaching community. This includes researching

current ones on the market, and recommending which one best meets the needs of the division.• For Focus Area #1, populate the digital repository with resources that will support the primary teachers in

their RTI’s and PLC’s that are literacy related and provide support for teachers’ instructional practices and for the students in their learning.

76

Observations and Recommendations: Software – General


In Focus Area #1, membership of the SDRAT should include, at a minimum:

• Superintendent of Education (Student Services)

• Superintendent of Education (Curriculum)

• Principal of Information Services

• Elementary Principal

• Representative Learning Coach

• Representative School Based Instructional Facilitator (formerly known as the TIL)

• Resource Based Learning Coordinator

• Special Education Consultant

• Speech and Language Pathologist

• Representative K-3 teacher (for Focus Area #1)

• Network Support Specialist

• An external Leading and Learning educational consultant, who has experience with similar initiatives in other divisions should sit on this team as a resource to the team.

Membership will need to be modified with each new Focus Area implemented.

77



Recommendation: The SDRAT should develop a protocol for measuring the relative merits of digital resources (i.e. digital texts, software, video streaming services, e-learning, etc.) when making learning resource acquisition decisions. This protocol must be documented and followed. The Why statement and its Focus Areas should be used as the guide for this protocol. For the Focus Area #1 software and digital resources that support K-3 literacy should be sought out and evaluated.

Recommendation: The following items must also be considered in the selection of any software resources: Compatibility and functionality within the existing computer network operating systems; Budget implications; Training, support, and maintenance requirements; and Whether web-based access is preferred given current bandwidth limitations

Recommendation: After selecting the software for Focus Area #1, on an annual basis the SDRAT should: Review the current software included in each of the categories to determine ongoing appropriateness of the

titles in light of new tools that may be available and on their ability to continue to meet the teaching and learning needs.

For the next Focus Area that is being introduced, review the current software in each of the categories to identify gaps in the offerings and what is needed.

Have an established process for staff to request new software titles for consideration and for the SDRAT to assess the request.

Use the selection criteria that was developed by the SDRAT to assess all software including a thorough test of the software on the division’s school infrastructure to ensure it is compatible. If it is web-based, an attempt should be made to run the software from the different connection types that teachers and students will have at home to determine how the software will run under different connection scenarios and on different devices. This same testing should be done at schools with different internet bandwidth and access types.



Run a pilot by choosing 1-2 solutions per software category for each new Focus Area that most closely meet the requirements and conduct a field test over 1 to 2 months in at least 2 schools. Selection should be based on ease of use, ease of integration, student and teacher use in whole, small and individual instruction, and other functionality identified in the selection criteria.

• If there is not enough time to run a 1-2 month pilot, a small group of teachers from the Focus Area along with the members of the SDRAT should use the same selection criteria in a guided selection workshop that would take place over a day or two. The participants should be given an additional two weeks to spend time with the software and the selection criteria to provide additional comments and findings.

Report back on their progress throughout this process to the Technology Enabled Learning Team who will approve the final selection based on budget approval from the executive team.

Rollout to all schools the selected software resources for the appropriate Focus Areas.

Develop a Professional Development plan, following the model in the PD section of this report, to prepare the teachers to use the software in their instruction.

If the Focus Area does not change in the following year, and the solution continues to be effective, no further investigative work is required.

Recommendation: This report recommends a number of software processes and protocols that are required for effective use by teachers and students. However, since the actual software products have not been selected, the specific costs are yet to be determined. For budget planning purposes we have recommended an annual amount for the software component based on current best practices that we have observed in other divisions.



The objective of this software category - Web 2.0 Tools - is to allow teachers and students to take advantage of the 2.0 features of the Internet especially collaboration and social networking. When selecting these tools, consideration should be given to features such as:

ease of use; how well the tool facilitates collaboration; ability to work within the division’s ADS structure so that userids can be synchronized and supported centrally; ability to limit access to division stakeholders based on their roles as needed; accessibility from both home and school on a variety of devices with given bandwidth; and can the data be backed up by the division

Observation: For Web 2.0 there are currently no division supported Web 2.0 tools.

Observation: Any Web 2.0 tools being used in the division appear to be chosen by individual teachers. This could be quite costly, and time consuming, as more teachers spend time trying to find the right tool for the task. In addition, as more questions begin to be directed to division support staff, more time is spent time looking at the tools and trying to provide “best efforts” support on how to use the tool or how to get the teacher and their students signed up.

Observation: NWSD currently does not have published guidelines for the acceptable use of Web 2.0 software. Given how easy it is for any staff or students to choose a tool and begin to use it, it is extremely important that guidelines be written, approved and communicated to all stakeholders.

Observations and Recommendations: Software – Web 2.0


Recommendation: The Software & Digital Repository Advisory Team should be charged with the writing of the appropriate and responsible use Guidelines for Web 2.0 tools. These guidelines should be included as a section in the existing division Acceptable Use Policies. These guidelines that are created around the use of Web 2.0 tools must clearly communicate: A list of the standard and supported Web 2.0 tools Clear communication that if a teacher selects a tool other than the standard ones that are publicly supported by the division they will

be on their own - support will NOT be provided by IT or the division support staff. Also, the teacher will be responsible for ensuring the tool meets the Web 2.0 usage guidelines that are published by the division.

A description of the risks associated with the use of Web 2.0 tools (i.e. data security and privacy especially when it comes to personal information/pictures/videos)

Guidelines to explicitly define what staff and students should and should not post, such as:• no student last names or personal information of any kind • no pictures or videos of students

Recommendation: Assuming teachers sign the Acceptable Use Policy, all filtering and blocking for teachers should be removed.

Recommendation: For Web 2.0 tool usage (including the standard set of tools and others that would be used occasionally), the SDRAT should recommend to the Technology Enabled Learning Team what filtering and blocking policies might be required for students. The TELT should make a decision on this. Consideration should be given to: Concerns related to security/appropriate use of certain sites Bandwidth Management:

• Will certain tools not be feasible, i.e. Video Streaming, especially as more and more devices come into the schools through BYOD

• Will you need to restrict some tools by user group?

Recommendation: Ongoing discussions must occur with staff and student about current bandwidth issues that exist and what each person must be aware of in terms of their impact on the bandwidth (i.e. what happens when they stream video, how can they minimize their impact on the school and the division).



Observation: It appears that there has been no formal attention paid to the amount of work / information stored on any third party sites that may be currently used by teachers and students, and what the potential exposure would be if the tool were to shut down or be subject to a security breach.

Recommendation: As the SDRAT selects the most appropriate Web 2.0 tools, they must consider whether or not the tool is being used to demonstrate learning versus as a place to store division assets, and intellectual capital (i.e. as a digital repository for content that teachers and students would rely on for teaching and learning purposes.)

Recommendation: The SDRAT must outline the selection criteria to be used when selecting standard Web 2.0 tools. These criteria, at a minimum, should consider:

Where the tool is hosted Security of the tool given who will be using it and what information will be created, saved, shared in this tool Security / risk of privacy issues depends upon where the data is stored and what data is stored Importance of the information / data being stored and the concern that this may represent intellectual capital

that the division should not put at risk of loss. After this is assessed, the need for backup may be required Dependability / reliability - what if the tool / site disappears tomorrow? Free vs. Fee – what if it is free today and comes at a cost at some time in the future? Amount of technical support required to initially set it up and then support on an ongoing basis Can you import userids from the Active Directory – should this be a requirement in any formally supported

tool? The need to test and support in terms of device image and browser compatibility. Does the tool need to run on the majority of student owned devices, or will consideration only be given to

board supplied devices? • i.e. if it requires a specific browser, that may limit usage to a specific device.



Observation: The number of categories and tools within the Web 2.0 sphere are vast and growing almost daily. It will not be possible for the SDRAT to select a tool in every category.

Recommendation: A standard set of division Web 2.0 tools should be selected by the SDRAT that will be supported in terms of embedding them within the curriculum initiatives, supported in the professional development plan and supported by IT in terms of user logins and potentially data backup if deemed appropriate and feasible. At a minimum, the SDRAT should select a standard tool within each category listed below based on the set of selection criteria that the SDRAT must create (based on previous recommendations).

Blog Tool – i.e. KidBlog is currently one example of a Web 2.0 tool that Program Consultants have shown to teachers to support their blogging needs. This tool or one like it should be selected and formally supported by both IT and Program in a joint effort.

Wiki Synchronous Collaboration Tools such as Google Apps A social networking tool for Professional Learning and collaboration such as Twitter Podcasting tool Note: There are many other categories available that the SDRAT may want to consider



Recommendation: Clear guidelines need to be published that define what data and information can be entered into these tools (i.e. no student names, addresses, pictures, etc.). Risks associated with use of these tools must clearly be defined and understood. The SDRAT must draft these guidelines and they need to be approved by the Technology Enabled Learning Team.

Recommendation: If the Web 2.0 tools are being used to store information that represents intellectual capital or is being used to build out a digital repository for other staff and students to use as an integral part of their teaching and learning, then the Web 2.0 tools selected to provide this functionality should be ones that are owned, hosted, supported and backed up by the division, in their own data centre behind their firewall.

Recommendation: DUE TO CURRENT BANDWIDTH LIMITATIONS, wherever possible the Web 2.0 tools selected should be ones that can be owned, hosted, supported and backed up by the division, in their own data centre behind their firewall.

Recommendation: These categories of Web 2.0 tools listed above should be embraced by the division RBL Coordinator and Learning Coaches, and they should all be capable of using them and coaching others to use them. Initially they should be shown to the teacher as ways for the teachers to collaborate together on an initiative whether as part of a Focus Area, or just as a way to collaborate within their school or between schools. Teachers should be shown how students might use these tools and be given the professional latitude to use these tools with their students when they are comfortable with them. Support for teachers in their use with students must be provided by the RBL Coordinator, Learning Coaches and IT services staff.

Recommendations: Software – Web 2.0


The objective of this category of software – Curriculum Tools - is to address the instructional needs of teachers and students in the key achievement areas identified in a Focus Area (i.e. K-3 literacy) and also to support other areas of the curriculum as budget allows.

Recommendation: Criteria for selection of these digital resources should be similar to the ones that would be used to assess text-based or print-based resources for the same curriculum areas, such as:

Promotes active student participation in the learning process;

Includes both cooperative and independent learning opportunities;

Develops critical thinking skills;

Concepts are presented in a problem solving format;

Provides explicit instructional feedback;

Multiple learning modalities are addressed;

Includes cross curricular materials and connections;

Provides supports to the teacher in terms of lesson plans, classroom and home activities related to the curriculum expectations;

Web-based access is preferable for use by students and teachers from school and home;

Modular so specific activities can be directly aligned with specific expectations;

Allows for differentiated instruction for individual students

Observations and Recommendations: Software – Curriculum Courseware


Observation: While the division has a significant number of software titles installed on its network, there does not appear to be many titles that meet the criteria on the previous slide, for K-3 literacy.

Observation: Based on feedback from focus groups and the survey, there are many titles that are rarely used.

Observation: Teachers indicated that they did not know how to find software or resources that were appropriate to the curriculum area or outcome that they were working on.

Recommendation: The division is encouraged to find rich curriculum courseware resources that directly support differentiated instruction and the specific Focus Areas being targeted each year. For Focus Area #1, they should look at literacy courseware for Grades K-3. The following software titles are recommended as a starting point for review:

Destination Reading

SuccessMaker

Achieve3000

Raz-Kids

Recommendation: The server software image should be closely examined by the SDRAT to ensure that titles are not maintained that are no longer required. This can be costly in terms of costs to purchase licenses, to install and test and to maintain over time.

Observations and Recommendations: Software – Curriculum Courseware


The objective of this software category is to accommodate the basic productivity tasks that teachers and students do on a regular basis, typically found in an office suite, such as word processing, presentations and spreadsheets. When selecting these tools, consider such features as:

Standard suite offered at the division and schools; Consideration be given to ease of taking files between home and school in terms of

compatibility; where more than one tool is available, clear communication on file protocols so they can be shared at all levels as needed;

Features provided in each of the main office suite components should meet the needs of division staff, teachers and students; and

Ease of use.

Observation: NWSD has standardized on MS Office which is available on school servers which makes it easier for staff and students to create and edit and share files in a standard format.

Recommendation: To ensure standards across staff and students, a continued focus on one standard office suite is recommended.

Observations and Recommendations: Software –Productivity Tools




Access to Digital Information and

Resources


Best Practices: Access To Digital Information and Resources

Curriculum 1. Digital access to relevant resources

– 24/7 – Blended learning

2. Aligned to Ministry expectations

3. Easily searched and sorted

4. Vetted

5. Ranked / Scored (voted on) / Discussed

Websites Consistent branding of Board and School

sites Easy syndication of key content Subscription / push capabilities Easy content authoring and maintenance Teacher or class web pages Governance for effective use

Standard, Supported Web 2.0 Tools Blogs Wikis Team Rooms / PLC’s On-line Professional Community


Observation: Although there is an attempt to maintain the division web site and provide assistance to schools for their web sites, it is done on a best efforts basis and is one of the many roles that the Resource Based Learning Coordinator does. The division does not currently have a dedicated communications officer.

Observation: There is no division portal strategy / design in place.

Observation: Most professional resources used are still hard copy (i.e. paper-based). In addition, the majority of teachers surveyed and interviewed indicated there is limited access to online lesson plans, an online teacher community, data and online professional development opportunities.

Recommendation: An enterprise wide portal strategy is needed that encompasses the best practices on the previous page and that addresses the needs of all stakeholders.

Recommendation: A Portal Definition workshop, facilitated by a third party, should be pursued as soon as possible. In this workshop, an enterprise wide portal can be designed that will include, at a minimum, a standard set of collaboration tools, web-based information repositories, access to an on-line professional learning community, vetted lesson plans digital resources, and a learning management system and dashboards that provide role-based alerts on student achievement. There should also be a dedicated parent component that will facilitate two way communication between the parent and their schools.

Recommendation: Due to very limited bandwidth, all portal tools,online communities and resources must be tested for performanceand throughput before consideration.

.

Observations and Recommendations: Digital Information and Resources


Observation: School and division staff lack access to rich data that is needed to personalize the learning experience for each student.

Recommendation: Any work done on the portal related to data and assessment (i.e. dashboards, etc.) must reflect the work that the ministry is doing in this area if and when it comes to fruition.

Observation: Other than email which teachers reported to use on a daily basis, most teachers reported they never use: twitter, wikis, blogs, discussion forums, instant messaging, or teacher web pages. Other than email which principals use on a daily basis, most principals reported they never use twitter, wikis or blogs.

Observation: Given the distance between schools, access to online collaboration tools would be extremely beneficial to all division staff to enable collaboration, provide just in time information, and minimize travel time and expenses.

Observation: It was reported that the teacher’s union is considering creating a directory that will enable cross school communication

Recommendation: Tools, such as an online directory, when it becomes available should be accessible from the portal.

Recommendation: As the SDRAT selects the appropriate categories of web 2.0 tools and the specific tools that will be supported board-wide, these tools should be made available through the portal.

.



Recommendation: The portal should include a digital resource repository that provides access to vetted, K-3 rich (for Focus Area #1), digital resources, through a Digital Content Management System (DCMS), that integrates and aligns all resources that a teacher would use. In addition it should: provide resources to stakeholders, 24/7, based on their role, with authentication of role occurring at login. allow the individuals supporting the teachers in the use of technology based resources (i.e. Learning Coaches and

School Based Instructional Facilitators), to store related digital resources, unit, lesson and activity plans in an easily searchable online space that can be accessed anywhere, anytime by teachers, administrators, students and parents, as appropriate. At a minimum resources should be searchable: • by expectation, big idea, theme (plants; pioneers; etc.), grade level, key word, learning style, etc.• on multiple criteria at once: expectations, grade, key word, theme, learning style, etc. • and when you find a resource or activity or lesson, you can also get a list of the outcomes that each activity

meets allow staff should be able to vote and comment on a resource provide the ability to create a ‘playlist’ of the resources that the teacher finds that are appropriate so they can save

it in an appropriate format, share with others, and save it locally or on their home drive on the server provide teachers with the ability to add resources to their own private repository or to the shared one be able to build out a PLC / RTI template and be able to include learning goals/success criteria/big ideas/etc. have a vetting process to share all resources with others for jurying, approving and posting provides a student view that allows a teacher to share a list of resources with students

Recommendation: For the DCMS there should be a scheduled revalidation process so that annually each resource (activity, lesson plan, template, etc.) is reviewed and retained, edited or deleted.

Recommendation: For the DCMS, there will need to be clear guidelines on who populates resources and how they are shared.

Recommendations: Digital Information and Resources


Recommendation: To create the Digital Content Management System (DCMS), the following is recommended: Governance: NWSD should embark on a project to organize, align and vet its repositories of digital information.

Content standards should be established. Content should reside in one repository only. An integrated access point should be built from which all resources can be accessed, tagged and searched. NWSD should start with K-3 Literacy content in Focus Area #1.

Copyright: NWSD should educate its content contributors on the copyright rules for digital content. The rules for digital content are different than printed material and are often not understood by end users. As NWDS’s content repositories become more sophisticated it should solicit end user’s confirmation that content has been vetted for copyright compliance.

Moderators: Effective content repositories require a content owner / moderator. The moderator assists with content governance, promotion of the repository to end users and builds plans to overcome the resistance of sharing teacher generated content. Moderators can be assigned by grade and subject matter.

DCMS: After the governance, copyright and moderation challenges have been addressed NWSD should deploy a Digital Content Management System (DCMS) as described on the previous page.

Recommendation: NWSD should create Electronic Collaboration Spaces, that are accessible initially through the internet and eventually via the portal. The following should be considered in the creation, use and maintenance of these spaces: Moderation: In order for electronic collaboration to be successful, a moderator / owner will be required per

collaboration space. The moderator will control membership, rules for participation and ensure that member requests are addressed in a timely manner.

Key Project Collaboration Spaces: Collaboration spaces should initially be created for the Primary Literacy Focus Area #1.





Innovative Teaching Practices for the 21st

Century


Best Practices: Innovative Teaching Practices for the 21st Century

Teachers, principals and supporting division staff: Understand the profile of the 21st Century learner Understand 21st Century Skills and can model them including:

• Creativity • Critical Thinking and Problem Solving• Collaboration • Communication• Information and Media Literacy• ICT Literacy • Digital Citizenship Are committed to lifelong learning for themselves and their students

Are comfortable and capable of using High Yield / High Probability Strategies

Teachers understand and model their changing role in the 21st Century Classroom Adaptor Communicator Lead Learner Coach / Mentor Facilitator Visionary Leader Collaborator Risk Taker High Emotional Intelligence

95


Teachers, principals and supporting division staff:

With the framework in place, can effectively use all the components including:• Student and Teacher Access

• Digital Resources – Software, Web 2.0, Portals

• 21st Century Practices

• Professional Learning

Consider technology and the related digital resources as an essential part of the learning experience

Use digital resources whenever appropriate to engage the learner and deepen the learning

Best Practices: Innovative Teaching Practices for the 21st Century

96


Observations and RecommendationsInnovative Teaching Practices for the 21st Century

Observation: Some staff members are not aware of the research on the 21st century student and therefore do not understand the power and the importance of embracing technology in their schools.

Observation: Teachers and division staff reported that although many teachers may be interested in using technology more effectively they lack time to really understand how to embed it into their practice.

Recommendation: To truly understand the educational value and benefit of educational technology, teachers, principals and supporting division staff must understand the profile of the 21st Century learner. This will allow teachers and other staff to understand current leading pedagogical thinking and strategies that embrace creativity, critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration, communication, information and media literacy, ICT (Information and Communication Technology) Literacy and digital citizenship – all in the context of using high yield strategies. These concepts must be addressed in any professional learning that takes place:

All staff members (division and school) must know the research behind who these 21st Century learners are in their classrooms and the most effective practices to engage them

School and division staff should participate in a book or article club where they are expected to read and participate in a discussion on the reading, once a month at a staff meeting

Invite ‘expert’ speakers to division PD days for staff

Recommendation: All principals and vice principals must be able to understand and know what these practices look like when used effectively and know where to go to get additional supports for their staff. They need to have “look fors”, and guided observation suggestions.

97


Observations and RecommendationsInnovative Teaching Practices for the 21st Century

Recommendation: All division support staff (Learning Coaches, SLP’s, OT’s, the Special Education Consultant, RBL Coordinator, etc.) and the School Based Instructional Facilitators need to be comfortable with and be able to model the effective use of technology in their respective practices.

Recommendation: Staff must be shown how to effectively use all the components described in the IBM Educational Technology framework – the student devices, the teacher devices, the digital resources, and 21st Century Practices in an integrated way within the classroom and as part of the instructional strategies they are using. The use of digital resources must become an essential part of the learning experience, and teachers, principals and division instructional leaders and other support staff must know when and where they are appropriate to engage the learner and deepen the learning. These concepts must be addressed in their professional development (see the PD section of this plan for recommendations) and teachers must be given time to embed these practices into their classrooms.

Observation: Teachers need to understand that the use of technology should not be an add-on but rather a way to more effectively do what they are already doing. Time was reported as a barrier to embracing educational technology by teachers and division staff.

Recommendation: Principals and staff should be encouraged to use a Stop, Start, Continue analysis on the current tasks and resources that they are currently doing / using. Practices that have been shown to be ineffective should be stopped and other more effective strategies that the province and the division are endorsing should be adopted and technology seamlessly embedded into those practices. Reading Recovery and the use of Fountas and Pinnell in the primary grades are examples of this. It will be critical that these conversations respect the work teaches have been doing and that principals and teachers work together to identify practices that can be abandoned or changed.

98


Observation: Some teachers are not willing to risk using technology resources if they are not completely sure of how to use them.

Recommendation: Teachers should be encouraged to allow and engage students as resources for their learning. Teachers need to realize and be comfortable with being one of the many learners in the classroom.

Observation: There are examples of effective use of technology in the classroom and these teachers could act as support for other teachers in their schools.

Recommendation: There should be a formal process to identify leaders in division initiatives and formally share their practices, through vehicles such as:

Video clips of these teachers in action that are shared online Highlights on the board website Twitter

Recommendation: The division should consider demonstration classrooms that would allow teachers to visit these classrooms and observe teachers who are using strategic instructional practices endorsed by the Ministry and the division where technology is effectively embedded (i.e. a Primary Literacy teacher using Reading Recovery, Fountas and Pinnell, Reading Screens, educational technology and other resources effectively in their literacy block).

Observation: Schools continue to spend money on resources that have been proven to be ineffective or for technology resources that they do not have a clear reason for buying.

Recommendation: School purchases must be tied to the Continuous Improvement Framework and their School Improvement Plan. With respect to technology related purchases, they must be guided by the Why Statement and the Focus Area that is currently being implemented.

Observations and Recommendations Innovative Teaching Practices for the 21st Century

99




ProfessionalDevelopment


Best Practices: Professional Development

All PD at the division and school level embeds technology into it as another tool to be used where appropriate (RTI, PLC, DI, critical thinking, literacy, math).

PD is provided on how to use technology resources to deliver meaningful instruction and activities to enhance student achievement in the focus area, i.e. literacy

ICT skills are acquired through subject specific PD and the integration of technology in the teaching and learning process (as opposed to ICT-specific PD)

Provide multiple models for PD including face-to-face, job embedded coaching/mentoring, web-based

– New teaching practices can require as much as 50 hours of instruction, practice and coaching before teachers become comfortable with them

PD must be available to all appropriate stakeholders (teachers, administrators, school staff, Supervisory Officers)

25-35% of initiative budget should be spent on PD

101


Best Practices: Professional Development / Roles

Teacher Lifelong learners with an understanding of how technology can improve student

achievement and skills in integrating technology as a teaching/learning tool

Consultant/Coach/mentor Does the initial training and in-class, just-in-time modeling/follow-up Works with curriculum development teams/school implementation teams Facilitates on-going discussion / support groups

Principal / School Administrator Empowers teachers; creates an expectation of use and monitors and models

integration as part of good instruction

Division Executive Create policies and programs to support these strategies Observes the use of effective of technology during school visits and reviews school

improvement plans for evidence of integration actions

102


Best Practices: Professional Development Delivery Methods

Face to Face

Coaching/Mentoring (Embedded)

Technology Assisted


Recommendation: A Professional Development Advisory Team (PDAT) should be created with representative stakeholders to develop and manage the final PD plan.

The following pages in this section present recommended Professional Development plans for:

1. All educational staff and their understanding of 21st century students2. PD workflow to be followed in implementing each Focus Area3. All teachers and supporting staff for the K – 3 literacy initiative4. All educational staff receiving laptops 5. Building instructional leadership capacity6. Library tech7. A student technology support team

Each Professional Development Plan is separated by a header page to identify the audience.

Each of these plans should be considered as STARTING POINTS for consideration by the Professional Development Advisory Team (PDAT) and be customized as appropriate.

Observations and Recommendations: Professional Development


Recommendation: Creation of the Professional Development Advisory Team :

In Focus Area #1, membership should include, at a minimum, Superintendent of Elementary Curriculum and Instruction, a Learning Coach, a School Based Instructional Facilitator, a Special Education Consultant, a Speech and Language Pathologist and a primary teacher. An external Leading and Learning educational consultant, who has experience with similar initiatives in other divisions should sit on this team as a Resource to the team. Membership will need to be modified with each new Focus Area implemented.

The mandate for the PDAT should include:

• Review / refinement of the professional development recommended later in this report.

• Assessment of the effectiveness of the professional development plan as it is implemented to inform future professional development plans and also to inform decisions related to additional professional learning that may be needed.

• Creation of the professional development plan for follow-on Focus Areas.

• Presentation of plans to the Technology Enabled Learning Team and ultimately the executive team for approval of both finances and resources.

Observations and Recommendations: Professional Development


21st Century StudentsRecommended for: All Educational Staff


Observation: The Core Team as well as elementary and secondary teacher focus groups believe that a review of who 21st Century students are and how they learn is very important in creating a mind set for a change in teaching practices to further engage, and be more aligned with the learning styles of, NWSD students.

Recommendation: It is recommended that NWSD engage a speaker with expertise in this area to provide a greater understanding of 21st Century students and how they learn as well as how technology can play a role in their learning.

Recommendation: School and division staff should participate in a book or article club where they are expected to read and participate in a discussion on the reading, once a month at a staff meeting.

Recommendation: Upon completion of the final Technology Enabled Learning Plan, and in conjunction with the speaker recommended above, a presentation of the plan should be made to all division staff to indicate that the educational technology direction of the division is not only aligned with division priorities, but also with 21st century students and their learning styles.

Observations and Recommendations: Professional Development - 21st Century Students


PD Workflow for each Area of FocusRecommended for: All Educational Staff


Recommendations: PD Workflow Structure

Learning Coaches

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead

Senior Leadership(Superintendents &

RBL Consultant)

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead

K-3 Staff 2 to 3 days per teacher for Literacy and 1 Day Laptop Care and Feeding

Use PLCs and a small teacher release budget per school

• Monthly Full Day sessions

• Instructional Strategy Development

• Resource Selection

3rd Party Mentor

• SBIF replaces the TIL title

Professional Development Advisory Team


Observation: There are a number of key staff resources already established within the NWSD including: 2 Superintendents of Curriculum and Instruction 1 Superintendent of Schools 1 Superintendent of Student Services 1 Resource Based Learning Consultant 4 Learning Coaches 6 Speech and Language Pathologists 8.5 staff trained in Early Reading Intervention (ERI) A Technology Integrated Leader (TIL) at each school

Recommendation: As indicated in the diagram on the previous page, the recommended PD Workflow Structure leverages the above key staff resources in the following 4 step, cyclical approach:

Step 1: A 3rd party mentor, with proven expertise in the given focus area, i.e. K-3 Literacy, works with the Senior Leadership team and the Learning Coaches to select the learning strategies, resources that will be used in each area of focus, and to co-construct lessons to be modeled at the schools.

Step 2: The Learning Coaches lead monthly sessions at each of their schools, with the Principal/Vice Principals, TIL and PLC lead in the area of focus to present and model sample lessons in the area of focus.

Step 3: The school Principal/Vice Principal, TIL, PLC lead and Learning Coach work directly with the classroom teachers to model lessons and support teacher delivered lessons. PLC and TIL time allocations should be utilized in this step as well as any budget allocations the school may have.

Step 4: An Online Professional Community should be utilized to teacher access to resources and collaboration with other teachers. An example of an Online Professional Community is SimpleK12.com

Observations and Recommendations: Professional Development - PD Workflow Structure


K to 3 LiteracyRecommended for: K - 3 Teachers, RBL Coordinator, Learning Coaches, SBIF, Principals/VPs


Observation: The Core Team believes that any professional development plan recommended should be job embedded for teachers and be hands on, in order to avoid “sit and get” sessions

Recommendation: For the Grades K-3 Literacy Focus Area, the focus must be on pedagogy taking advantage of the school based Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to improve teacher capacity and student learning.

Recommendation: The professional development plan for every K-3 teacher should include: 3 days of face to face PD in the first year leveraging the PLC process In-school coaching available to each teacher one to two times per month

Recommendation: The estimated resources to deliver this type of job-embedded learning plan would require:

The 4 division Learning Coaches working in the schools throughout the year School principals and vice principals School Based Instructional Facilitator (SBIF, formerly the TIL position) The school K-3 PLC lead, which will need to be identified at each school.

Recommendation: This approach will take advantage of the work being done in the PLC process by weaving the technology tools seamlessly and as appropriate into literacy instructional practice and lessons. All K-3 teachers should begin to understand how and when it can be used by both themselves and their students. The support resources identified in the previous recommendation will model effective use as they work with the teachers in the co-constructing and co-instructing process.

Observations and Recommendations: Professional Development - K to 3 Literacy (Focus Area #1)


Recommendation: Through the use of a tool such as Adobe Connect (bandwidth permitting), provide ongoing opportunities, on a monthly basis, for teachers to join a conversation around the integration of technology into K-3 Literacy instructional practices.

Recommendation: Using the PLC cycle from Marzano et. al. shown on the following page, the professional development plan on the following pages has been developed. This can be used as a starting point for discussions by the Professional Development Advisory Team.

Recommendation: An on-line professional community tool should be used for staff to be able to collaborate with each other, and other K-3 Literacy teachers who can share instructional practices and exemplary lessons/digital resources.

Observations and Recommendations: Professional Development – K to 3 Literacy (Focus Area #1)


From: Marzano, R , Pickering, D , Norford, J , Paynter, D , Gaddy, B (2001) Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works, Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Observations and Recommendations: Professional Development - PD Workflow Structure


Participants Location Duration / Timing

Facilitated by: 3rd Party External Mentor, Division Superintendent Leadership team

Attendees: Division Superintendent Leadership team, RBL Coordinator, Learning Coaches

Division Office • ½ day per session • Session Two: Maximum two weeks after Session

One

Sessions One and Two (PLAN) Learning Goals : • Develop capacity and leadership in literacy education, in order to improve student learning and achievement in literacy• To refine and examine evidence-based teaching strategies and an implementation framework that would engage a diverse community of learners in developing

literacy for teaching within a school-based professional learning community (PLC).• Study literacy content and instruction by developing, planning and implementing literacy lessons within literacy learning blocks, using evidence-based teaching

strategies

Agenda:• Review of the K-3 Literacy project initiative goals and success criteria • What does literacy instruction look like in my classroom? • Examine data/evidence to determine an area of need related to student achievement and/or engagement

• Select a learning focus (e.g. for a 2–4 week module or unit) that addresses the area of student need; select curriculum expectations; “unpack” to acquire a common understanding of expected student learning

• Select instructional strategies that will be initially targeted and build sample lessons for modeling• Determine educator learning (i.e. what and how) required to address the area of student need (e.g. review current instructional practice and research

related to learning goal) • Plan “with the end in mind”:

• Decide what evidence will indicate that the area of student need has been addressed• Identify how success will be measured

• Maximizing the impact of the technology • Participants bring with them, and share, the digital resources that are currently available for literacy instruction to determine a standard list that will be

provided to all K-3 teachers.

Entrance ticket for next session: • After session one, build out the plan to bring back for refinement in session two • After session two, review plan and prepare to put into ACTION

Recommendations: K-3 Literacy PD Plan for Teachers, School Based Instructional Facilitators, Learning Coaches, K-3 PLC Lead Teacher and Principals



Learning Coaches


RBL Consultant)



3rd Party Mentor

Sessions One and Two address the above portion of the PD Workflow Structure

116


Participants Location Duration / Timing Facilitated by: Division Superintendent Leadership team, RBL Coordinator, Learning Coaches, 3rd Party External Mentor,

Attendees: School principal and vice principal, SBIF, school K-3 PLC Lead teacher

Local school • ½ day per session • Session Four: within one to two weeks of

session three

Sessions Three and Four (ACT) Learning Goals : • Develop capacity and leadership in literacy education, in order to improve student learning and achievement in literacy• To refine and examine evidence-based teaching strategies and an implementation framework that would engage a diverse community of

learners in developing literacy for teaching within a school-based professional learning community (PLC).• Study literacy content and instruction by developing, planning and implementing literacy lessons within literacy learning blocks, using

evidence-based teaching strategies

Agenda:• Review of the K-3 Literacy project initiative goals and success criteria • Engage in professional learning by presenting the instructional approaches that have been developed in Sessions One and Two• Maximizing the impact of the technology

• Attendees bring with them, and share, the digital resources that are currently available for literacy instruction to determine a standard list that will be provided to all K-3 teachers

Entrance ticket for next session: • Attendees prepare to collaborate with their K-3 co-teachers to refine lessons, prepare for delivery in co-teacher classrooms, continue to

refine lessons as they teach in their own classrooms, collect evidence of student learning • After session five, continue to collect evidence of student learning




Learning Coaches

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead


RBL Consultant)

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead




3rd Party Mentor

Sessions Three and Four address the next phase of the PD Workflow Structure

118


Participants Location Duration / Timing Facilitated by: School principal and vice principal, SBIF, school K-3 PLC Lead teacher (Division Superintendent Leadership team, RBL Coordinator, Learning Coaches, 3rd Party External Mentor may attend if available and should rotate amongst schools)

Attendees: K-3 teachers

Local school • Co-constructing lessons during PLC time• Co-teaching using SBIF time, Principal/VP

admin time

Session Five (ACT) Learning Goals : • Develop capacity and leadership in literacy education, in order to improve student learning and achievement in literacy• To refine and examine evidence-based teaching strategies and an implementation framework that would engage a diverse community of



Agenda:• Review of the K-3 Literacy project initiative goals and success criteria • Engage in professional learning by presenting the instructional approaches that have been developed in Sessions One through Four• Engage in professional learning through co-teaching, peer observation, lesson study, and coaching/mentoring, to build a collective

understanding of the instructional approach• Collaborate with K-3 teachers to refine lessons, prepare for delivery in co-teacher classrooms• Implement instruction in K-3 classrooms, adjusting as needed, based on ongoing assessment and feedback from students• Continue to refine and deliver lessons, collecting evidence of student learning

Entrance ticket for next session: • After session five, continue to collaborate with co-teachers and work in your own classroom to refine lessons and collect evidence of

student learning





Local School • ½ day • This session should occur two three weeks

after session five so that teachers have time to observe the impact of changes they made following session five and continue to make further refinements. PLC time could be used.

• Participants should have online opportunities to collaborate, discuss and reflect on what they have observed prior to session seven

Session Six (OBSERVE) Learning Goals : • Develop capacity and leadership in literacy education, in order to improve student learning and achievement in literacy• To refine and examine evidence-based teaching strategies and an implementation framework that would engage a diverse community of learners in

developing literacy for teaching within a school-based professional learning community (PLC).• Study literacy content and instruction by developing, planning and implementing literacy lessons within literacy learning blocks, using evidence-based

teaching strategies

Agenda:• Monitor—student learning and educator learning

• Share and examine evidence of student learning, including student feedback, record on tracking chart/data wall, devise next steps • Share instructional practice, discuss instructional issues, find solutions for challenges, determine next steps for educator learning• Implement instruction, adjusting as needed, based on ongoing assessment and feedback from students • Engage in professional learning (e g , co-teaching, peer observation, lesson study, coaching/mentoring) to build a collective understanding of the

instructional approach

Entrance ticket for next session: • After session six, teachers will modify their lessons according to what was discussed in session six and record their observations on the impact of these

changes. They will be prepared to share these insights in session seven.





Local School • ½ day • Session Seven: should occur within a

week of the OBSERVE stage concluding.• Session Eight: one to two weeks between

after session seven

Session Seven (REFLECT) Learning Goals : • Develop capacity and leadership in literacy education, in order to improve student learning and achievement in literacy• To refine and examine evidence-based teaching strategies and an implementation framework that would engage a diverse community of



Agenda:• Examine, analyze and evaluate results:

• Co-assess/evaluate student work, share student feedback, display results • Decide, based on evidence, the extent to which the area of student need has been addressed• Reflect on educator learning, decide next steps

Entrance ticket for next session: • After session seven, implement next steps determined in session seven and record observations made during delivery• Participants should be encouraged to commit to continuing their partnerships through PLCs and online collaboration tools. Continued co-

construction and co-teaching opportunities should be provided.




Learning Coaches

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead


RBL Consultant)

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead

P/VP

SBIF

PLC Lead

K-3 Staff 2 to 3 days per teacher for Literacy and 1 Day Laptop Care and Feeding

Use PLCs and a small teacher release budget per school




3rd Party Mentor

• SBIF replaces the TIL title

Professional Development Advisory Team

Session Five through Seven address the final phase of the PD Workflow Structure


Participants Location Duration / Timing Facilitated by: Learning Coaches, SBIF, Principals/Vice Principals


Local school • 1 to 2 visits per month

Ongoing Coaching and Mentoring (PLAN, ACT, OBSERVE, REFLECT) Learning Goals : • Develop capacity and leadership in literacy education, in order to improve student learning and achievement in literacy• To refine and examine evidence-based teaching strategies and an implementation framework that would engage a diverse community of



Agenda:• Learning Coaches and SBIF will visit teachers once or twice a month to:

• Work with teachers on specific areas of literacy the teacher has identified as needing help • Co-construct, co-deliver lessons • Observe and reflect with the teacher on impact that the strategies are having • Assist the teacher and/or student in selecting appropriate resources to deepen their understanding of concepts including technology

based resources

Entrance ticket for next session • Learning Coaches and K-3 teachers will collaborate, virtually if possible, to determine what they will focus on in the next classroom visit



Laptops for Educational StaffRecommended for:

All Educational Staff receiving Laptops


Observation: Teachers are on a continuum in terms of comfort with technology and knowing what “else” is out there. Even the teachers that are comfortable with technology in their lives may not know what resources are available to them and how they can be embedded into the teaching and learning process. Often teachers don’t know what they don’t know and may be reluctant to ask questions, or cannot find the time to investigate on their own.

Recommendation: For all teachers not in Focus Area #1 (i.e. K-3 Literacy), a professional development plan is needed to provide support on how to use the device they will be receiving in their specific grades/subject areas. In order to minimize costs, the majority of this professional learning should take place during division PD days, during PLC sessions, using online tools, or during voluntary sessions.

Recommendation: Provide multiple entry points to professional learning opportunities for technology skill and comfort development, utilizing some of the following opportunities:

Access to voluntary after-school face to face sessions for teachers who are not comfortable with technology or new to the specific device they will be receiving. More in-depth PD for these teachers will be provided when they participate in their specific Focus Area.

Access to online tutorials that will step the user through individual applications. Examples of these online tutorials include Atomic Learning and InfoSource. These tools provide application specific training on common software titles (such as Microsoft Office) that will enable the user to move through the hands-on tutorial at their own pace and advance to the next level of the training when the first level has been successfully completed.

Access to an online Tech Tutor for coaching, mentoring and to ask questions. This can be done asynchronously with the option to collaborate live through the use of tools such as Adobe Connect, Google Apps, etc., as bandwidth allows.

Provide Tips and Techniques Sheets and videos based on initial care and feeding PD that teachers received when they got their mobile device to remind them about warranty, backup procedures, etc.

Observations and Recommendations: Professional Development for All Teachers


Recommendations: PD Plan for Laptops for All Educational Staff


Facilitated by: Learning Coaches, 3rd Party External Mentor

Attendees: All educational staff receiving laptops

Local school (or in larger group at central locations depending upon the rollout plan)

• 1 day. Could be divided into 2 half day sessions using PLC time or other division PD days

Session One: Introduction to LaptopsLearning Goals : • Become familiar with the features and functions of the laptop and related peripherals • Develop capacity and leadership in integrating technology into instruction, in order to improve student learning and achievement• Leverage the PLC process to further impact building teacher capacity

Agenda:• Who is the 21st century student? • Introduction to your laptop and peripherals• Discussion of the role of technology in instruction• Expectations and Guidelines for use


Participants Location Duration / Timing Facilitated by: Learning Coaches, SBIF, Principals/Vice Principals

Attendees: All teachers

Local school • 1 to 2 visits per month

Ongoing Coaching and Mentoring (PLAN, ACT, OBSERVE, REFLECT) Learning Goals : • Become familiar with the features and functions of the laptop and related peripherals • Develop capacity and leadership in integrating technology into instruction, in order to improve student learning and achievement• Leverage the PLC process to further impact building teacher capacity

Agenda:• Learning Coaches and SBIF will visit teachers, and PLC time to:

• Work with teachers on specific areas of literacy the teacher has identified as needing help • Co-construct, co-deliver lessons • Observe and reflect with teachers on the impact of technology integration • Assist the teacher and/or student in selecting appropriate resources to deepen their understanding of concepts including technology

based resources

Recommendations: PD Plan for Laptops for All Educational Staff


Building Instructional Leadership CapacityRecommended for:

All Superintendents, Principals and

Vice Principals, RBL Coordinator,

Learning Coaches


Observation: Division staff as well as principals and vice principals are not always provided the support and tools they need to provide the direction and support classroom teachers require.

Recommendation: All support staff in the school should be invited to attend the PD with the classroom teachers that they support. Principals and vice principals should be aware of the PD and attend if they are able.

Recommendation: The PD plan shown on the following pages is specifically designed to meet the needs of the principal as the school-based instructional leader, as well as vice principals, Leaning Coaches, RBL Coordinator and Superintendents of schools.

Recommendation: Information on Focus Area #1 should be provided at all principal meetings in order to keep the principals up to date and involved.

Recommendation: Technology should be embedded in the daily duties, wherever appropriate, of the principal and vice principal.

Observations and Recommendations: PD plan for Building Instructional Leadership Capacity


Recommendations: PD Plan to Build Instructional Leadership Capacity


Facilitated by: 3rd Party External Mentor, Superintendent of Program

Attendees: All Superintendents, Principals and Vice Principals , RBL Coordinator, Learning Coaches

Division Office • ½ Day

Session One Learning Goals : • Develop capacity and leadership in literacy education, in order to improve student learning and achievement in literacy• To refine and examine evidence-based teaching strategies and an implementation framework that would engage a diverse community of learners in developing literacy

for teaching within a school-based professional learning community (PLC).• Study literacy content and instruction by developing, planning and implementing literacy lessons within literacy learning blocks, using evidence-based teaching

strategies

Agenda:• Review of the K-3 Literacy project initiatives

• goals and success criteria • Who is the 21st century student? • What does technology enhanced instruction look like?• Introduction to teacher and student digital resources provided for K-3 Literacy– teacher and student • How will your teachers use their teaching device to engage students/ model to teachers in your various classrooms? How will you know if they are successful?

• ‘Look Fors’ / Observational Checklist • Are you able to identify good practice and comment on it?

• How can your device assist you in accomplishing the main goals of your job ( i.e. personally and with teacher interaction )• How can you model the use of your device in sessions with teachers and at staff meetings to ensure maximum student engagement and achievement?• Follow-on sessions will occur during Principal Meetings to carry on discussions on the above topics

Entrance ticket for ongoing sessions• Gather feedback related to applying strategies to support quality instruction



Facilitated by: Superintendent of Program

Attendees: All Superintendents, Principals and Vice Principals , RBL Coordinator, Learning Coaches

Division Office • Agenda item of monthly principal meetings

On-going Sessions Learning Goals : • Develop capacity and leadership in literacy education, in order to improve student learning and achievement in literacy• To refine and examine evidence-based teaching strategies and an implementation framework that would engage a diverse community of learners in developing literacy

for teaching within a school-based professional learning community (PLC).• Study literacy content and instruction by developing, planning and implementing literacy lessons within literacy learning blocks, using evidence-based teaching

strategies

Agenda:• Sharing of examples of how we continue to build their capacity with technology so they are able to effectively and efficiently embed technology based resources into

their daily tasks and understand how teachers can embed it into their classrooms • Introduction of new strategies to build capacity

Entrance ticket for next session • Gather feedback related to applying strategies to support quality instruction

Recommendations: PD Plan to Build Instructional Leadership Capacity


Library Tech

Recommended for: Library Techs at each school


Observation: Given the current role of the Technology Integrated Leader (TIL) is being recommended to be re-focused to a more direct role in supporting instruction and not on supporting technology, a gap related to local technical support may result.

Recommendation: To address this potential gap in local technical support, the vice principal or principal at each school should be named as the Technology Contact to provide a single point of contact at the school.

The Technology Contact will receive all technology related communications from the division and disseminate it to staff as appropriate.

The principal, vice principal, library tech and secretary should be able to submit tickets to FAME.

The library tech will provide school based technical problem identification, reporting and minor break-fix support.

• Formal training will outline these additional expectations for the Library Tech role and training to support these additional responsibilities will be provided by the Information Services Team.

• Responsibilities would include fixing printer issues, checking connections, connecting devices to projectors, helping to download videos, launching software, providing multimedia support, etc. And entering FAME tickets.

Observations and Recommendations: PD plan for Library Techs


Recommendations: Training Plan for the Library Techs

Participants Location Duration / Timing Facilitated by: Information Services Team

Attendees: Library techs

Sessions can be offered at one of the Division office locations on different days and library techs can sign up for them in advance.

• 1 day, late August or early September

Session OneLearning Goals : • Develop sufficient expertise amongst the library techs so that they can provide a minimal level of technical support for teachers and

students in their school

Agenda:• Overview of the role and duties• Review of the Why statement and Focus Area #1 initiative• Hands on training to perform tasks such as:

• fixing printer issues, checking connections, connecting LCDs, downloading videos, launching software, multimedia support, etc• How does the FAME process work?

• How to enter a FAME ticket• Feedback process for tickets

Entrance ticket for next session: • Gathering information to share on tasks performed, challenges, and requests for additional training



Facilitated by: Information Services Team

Attendees: Library Techs

Sessions can be offered at one of the Division office locations on different days and library techs can sign up for them in advance.

• ½ day, monthly

On-going SessionsLearning Goals : • Develop sufficient expertise to a group of students that will enable them to provide a minimal level of technical support for teachers and

students in their school

Agenda:• Review of the role and duties• Sharing of tasks performed and challenges related to their role• Discussion about Focus Area #1 progress at their schools • Introduction to software that the SDRAT has selected (i.e. introduce one new tool or software title at each session) • Additional hands on training to address new needs or needs identified by the team

Entrance ticket for next session • Gathering information to share on tasks performed, challenges, and requests for additional training

Recommendations: Training Plan for the Library Techs


Student Technology Support TeamRecommended for: Students at various grades with the

ability to provide assistance


Recommendation: The library tech, with the permission of the school principal, can choose to create a Student Technology Support Team to help them with the break-fix support. This should be a combination of senior students in the school and students from the year below so there is always an experienced group of students to mentor the newest members.

– Formal training that outlines the expectations for the role, and appropriate behaviour and responsibilities will be provided by the library tech.

– The potential for workplace credit should be explored.

Recommendations: PD plan for the Student Technology Support Team


Recommendations: Training Plan for the Student Technology Support Team

Participants Location Duration / Timing Facilitated by: Library Tech

Attendees: Students on the Technology Support Team

Local school • 90 minute after school session

Session OneLearning Goals : • Develop sufficient expertise to a group of students that will enable them to assist the Library Tech to provide a minimal level of technical

support for teachers and students in their school

Agenda:• Overview of their role and duties• Hands on training to perform tasks such as:

• fixing printer issues, checking connections, connecting LCDs, downloading videos, launching software, multimedia support, etc.• Signing an agreement of expectations and compliance

Entrance ticket for next session: • Gathering information to share on tasks performed, challenges, and requests for additional training



Facilitated by: Library Tech

Attendees: Students on the Technology Support Team

Local school • 60 minutes after school monthly

On-going SessionsLearning Goals : • Develop sufficient expertise to a group of students that will enable them to assist the Library Tech to provide a minimal level of technical

support for teachers and students in their school

Agenda:• Review of the role and duties• Sharing of tasks performed and challenges related to their role• Additional hands on training to address new needs or needs identified by the team

Entrance ticket for next session • Gathering information to share on tasks performed, challenges, and requests for additional training

Recommendations: Training Plan for the Student Technology Support Team


Analysis and Recommendations

Other Considerations

Technical Support


Observations and Recommendations:Technical Support

Recommendation: In order to make the most effective use of a portal and division wide websites, in addition to the planned hiring of a Communication Manager, this also typically requires an additional technical support person. This additional technical support person will definitely need to considered as new data and assessment tools and requirements come from the Ministry.

Key Observation: While not directly related to technical support, we felt it was important to note that feedback regarding the network speed was that the performance of the network within the school was quite acceptable. (i.e. launching software or retrieving data from the server within the school). However, the speed of the network outside the school, i.e. from a school to other locations in the division, or to the Internet, was consistently reported to be unacceptable. This was attributed to the relatively limited bandwidth (speed) of the current network beyond the walls of a school. This will limit the ability of NWSD to move forward in many of the web-based directions typically associated with this Technology Enabled Learning Plan.


Observations and Recommendations:Technical Support

Observation: In all focus groups and in the staff survey, there was strong support for the Information Services team and a recognition of the work they do given the limited number of staff they have to cover the division’s large geography. The majority reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with the technical support received.

Observation: Inconsistent technical support from the TILs combined with a reported lack of communication back to the person who initially reported a problem that resulted in a FAME ticket is causing some frustration in the schools.

Observation: There is a significant amount of technology in schools and only two technicians that are assigned full time to visit the schools to address any issues with these devices.

Recommendation: Improve the FAME ticket process, which is effective for reporting problems, so that users are better informed as to the status of the resolution and when the issue will be addressed.

Recommendation: Based on our observations and the general direction of increased usage of technology by staff and students in this plan, further analysis is required to determine if the staffing level in Information Services is sufficient. In other divisions where projects of similar nature were implemented, additional technical staffing was required.


Analysis and Recommendations

Financial Analysis and Budget

Considerations


Financial Analysis and Budget Considerations

The financial information for this plan is provided in this section at an Executive Summary level, and in a separate spreadsheet document entitled “NWSD Budget”. These estimates provided for budget planning purposes. Once the overall plan has been reviewed and final decisions have been made by NWSD on the go forward plan a more detailed financial analysis needs to be completed.

A fundamental guiding principle for this plan is sustainability on a perpetual basis. As such all costs for items (like hardware) that have an estimated useful life term are presented as an Annual Cost based on the recommended refresh cycle (i.e. 4 or 5 years). In addition, for hardware the initial price is also shown for informational purposes. For other items that occur on an annual basis (i.e. annual software licensing or annual professional development expenses) the amounts presented are the recommended/required annual costs for these items. It is important to note the estimated annual costs for each of the components would be incurred on an ongoing basis - forever - similar to other ongoing utility-like expenses (i.e. electricity, water, etc.). This plan is a continuous journey - a “new way of doing business” by truly embedding and embracing educational technology into the DNA of the teaching and learning process. It is not an “event”.

The details behind the Annual Costs shown for each of these components are found in the respective sections of this document for that component, or in the NWSD Budget spreadsheet that was provided as a separate document.

All annual costs related to this plan are for the “Effective Use” components of the framework only. They exclude “Infrastructure” items such as wireless access points, network or internet bandwidth, network management components (i.e. filtering, bandwidth shaping, security and identity management, etc.). These “Infrastructure” components are essential prerequisites to the “Effective Use” components, but they are beyond the scope of this report. And while NWSD has many of these “Infrastructure” components already in place they need to be considered and confirmed before each Focus Area is implemented.


Sizing Assumptions for Budget Analysis

Total Student Enrollment K to 12 (Not Pre-K) 4,857Total Number of Schools (Exlcuding Storefronts) 24

K-4 Schools 2K-6 Schools 3K-8 Schools 2K-9 Schools 1

K-12 Schools 105-6 Schools 17-9 Schools 1

7-12 Schools 210-12 Schools 2

Storefront Schools 2

Number of Students and Schools

1510215276

Total Number of School Support Staff(EA's, Library, School Coordinators, Secretaries)

Teachers and Support Staff

Total Number of Teachers 330

Estimated number of Gr 10 - 12 teachers (3 grades)Actual number of Gr K - 3/4 teachers

(See "Assumptions Focus Area 1" Tab)90

160

Avg number of teachers per grade (assuming K to 12 is 13 grades)

25

Approximate PTREstimated number of Gr K - 3 teachers (4 grades)Estimated number of Gr 4 - 9 teachers (6 grades)

High School Principals 3High School Vice-Principals 4

K-12 Principals 10K-12 Vice-Principals 10

Junior High School Principals 1Junior High School Vice Principals 2

Elementary School Principals 9Elementary School Vice-Principals 6

Principals and VP's

Total 45


Financial Analysis and Budget Considerations

The following page provides an Executive Summary of the Budget for each component of the IBM Framework. Two annual costs are shown for each component:

1. Annual Costs for Focus Area #1:

Costs for each component of the IBM Framework are shown are for the initial Focus Area which is Literacy in Grades K to 3.

Costs for student, teacher and other staff access are all assuming any hardware devices are leased on a 4 year term, and renewed each 4 years on a perpetual basis. The only exception is for subject specific computer labs for the higher grades, where we have assumed desktop devices which are leased and refreshed on a 5 year cycle.

Sizing assumptions for Focus Area #1 are found on the page following the Budget Executive Summary.

2. Annual Costs for Division-wide:

Costs for each component of the IBM Framework are shown for a Division-wide implementation including all Grades K to 12. Please note Pre-K is not included.

Costs for student, teacher and other staff access are all assuming any hardware devices are leased on a 4 year term, and renewed each 4 years on a perpetual basis. The only exception is for subject specific computer labs for the higher grades, where we have assumed desktop devices which are leased and refreshed on a 5 year cycle.

PLEASE NOTE: Costs for Technical Support and Infrastructure Components are not included.


Budget Executive Summary

147

Classroom Teacher Access $40,482 $148,434

School Support Staff Access (EA's, Library, School Admin, Secretaries) $13,184 $42,848

Principal and VP Access $12,051 $12,051

Central Program/Curriculum Staff $4,285 $4,285

Total Teacher/PVP/Staff Access $70,002 $207,618

Student Access $62,107 $234,088

Student Access - Other - Subject Specific Computer Labs for Higher Grades $0 $83,866

Total Student Access $62,107 $317,954

Software and Digital Resources $75,000 $225,000

Access to Digital Resources TBA TBA

Professional Development (Including Release Time Costs) $207,375 $207,375

Total Estimated Annual Costs $414,484 $957,946

(4) Any infrastructure costs such as network electronics, servers, storage, system software, network charges, Internet charges, etc.

NOTE: The above budget EXCLUDES the following:

(1) Costs for the recommended hiring of 2 additional Learning Coaches - which if burdened at $80,000 each would be $160,000 per year.

(2) Any existing Technical Support costs.

(3) Any additional Technical Support hiring required to support the additional technology usage and advanced web site usage in this plan.

Annual Costs for Division-Wide

Annual Costs for Focus Area #1

(Literacy in K to Gr 3/4)


Focus Area #1 Sizing Grades K to 3/4

K 1 1 17 171 1 17 171 1 16 16

K/1 (FR) 1 1 13 12 251 1 1 21 21

1 1 21 211/2 1 1 10 9 192 1 1 16 16

1 1 16 162 (FR) 1 1 17 17

3 1 1 17 171 1 17 171 1 17 17

3/4 (FR) 1 1 11 11 22

K 1 1 12 121 1 1 15 152 1 1 16 16

3/4 1 1 13 11 24

K 1 1 6 61/2 1 1 8 8 163/4 1 1 13 9 22

K 1 1 5 51/2 1 1 12 9 213/4 1 1 12 10 22

K 1 1 10 101/2 1 1 17 8 253 1 1 15 15

K 1 1 12 121 1 1 11 112 1 1 15 153 1 1 13 13

K 1 1 8 81 1 1 14 142 1 1 16 163 1 1 16 16

K/1 1 1 12 14 262 1 1 10 10

3/4 1 1 7 6 13

K 1 1 17 171 1 1 21 212 1 1 16 163 1 1 18 18

K 1 1 24 241 1 1 14 142 1 1 24 243 1 1 18 18

K 1 1 19 191 1 1 11 11

1 1 11 112 1 1 24 243 1 1 21 21

K 1 1 21 211 1 1 18 182 1 1 12 123 1 1 26 26

Lakeview (K-4)

Ernie Studer (K-12)

Glaslyn (K-12)

Goodsoil (K-12)

H.Hardcastle (K-12)

Ernie Studer (K-12)

Hillmond (K-12)

Neilburg (K-12)

Turtleford (K-12)

Pieceland Central School (K-12)

Paradise Hill School (K-12)

St. Wallburg (K-12)

K 1 2 3 4

TOTAL 90 90 344 362 359 369 70 1,504Dorintosh (K-8)

K/1/2 1 1 2 6 4 123/4 1 1 2 3 5

K/1/2 1 1 6 4 3 133/4 1 1 9 4 13

K 1 1 11 111/2 1 1 8 10 183/4 1 1 4 6 10

K 1 1 10 101 1 1 12 122 1 1 9 93 1 1 8 8

K 1 1 27 271 1 1 15 151 1 1 13 132 1 1 20 20

2/3 1 1 6 12 183 1 1 22 22

K 1 1 16 161 1 15 15

1 1 1 16 161 1 15 15

2 1 1 26 263 1 1 26 26

K 1 1 16 161 1 16 161 1 16 16

1 1 1 15 151 1 14 141 1 14 14

2 1 1 22 221 1 22 221 1 21 21

3 1 1 21 211 1 21 21

3/4 1 1 10 10 20

K-3/4 Classrooms/Teachers/Students by School

Marsden (K-6)

# of students in grade# of students

Green Acre (K-8)

Grade # of teachers# of

classrooms

Gateway School (5-6)

Marshall (K-9)

J.H. Moore (K-6)

Ratushniak (K-6)

Jubilee (K-4)


Summary of Teacher, Staff and Student AccessThe chart below provides a breakdown of the costs for access for teachers, staff and students – for the initial Focus Area (Gr K to 3/4) and for the rest of the grades. This includes laptop devices for all teachers and staff, a projector for all classrooms. It includes a pod of laptops for each classroom for student access, as well as charging and storage units. It does not include other teacher and student access devices such as interactive white boards (i.e. SmartBoards), nor does it include any costs for additional power outlets, or network drops in the schools.

Grades K to 3 Teachers - Focus Area #1 $155,700 $40,482Grades 4 to 12 Teachers $415,200 $107,952

Other School Staff $164,800 $42,848Total Teachers and School Staff $735,700 $191,282

Principals/VPs $46,350 $12,051Board Staff (Other Instructional Leaders) $16,480 $4,285

Total Principals/VPs/Board Staff $62,830 $16,336

Total Teacher/PVP/Staff Access $798,530 $207,618

Grades K to 3 - Focus Area #1 (Includes 3/4 splits) $238,873 $62,107Grades 4 to 12 $661,465 $171,981

Subject-specific computer labs for higher grades $403,200 $83,866

Total Student Access $1,303,538 $317,954

Teacher/PVP/Staff Access Purchase Price Annual Cost

Student Access Purchase Price Annual Cost


Project Milestones

Milestones for the First 18 Months


Recommendation: A considerable investment was made in the creation of this report by members of NWSD. To ensure that there is a significant return on this investment, action must be taken as soon as possible to implement the components of this plan. The following milestones are highlighted to ensure that actions are taken.

Recommendation: A detailed project plan MUST be created as soon as the TELP is approved. These milestones are to give a high level overview of what needs to be done in the short term.

November 2012: NWSD Executive Team reviews Technology Enabled Learning Plan (TELP), recommendations and associated

budget to determine if it is affordable. If it is not affordable, further review with the IBM Consulting team will be required to refine the plan to “do less but do it right”.

The Exec Team selects which TELP recommendations will be approved as is, and where the TELP Plan needs to be revised.

The current TIL position recommendations should be reviewed and if the decision is made to proceed with the modifications, this should be tabled for staffing discussions along with consideration for the hiring of 2 additional Learning Coaches.

The Technology Enabled Learning Team (TELT) is appointed; reviews the revised and approved TELP; and embraces the mission of implementing it.

The new Communications Manager is hired.

December 2012: The TELT reviews the recommendations, and identifies with the IT Team any prerequisite infrastructure

requirements - to ensure that infrastructure components required to support the desired outcomes of the TELP are in place, or planned to be implemented in a timely fashion.

The software (SDRAT) and PD (PDAT) Advisory Teams are formed. The TELT creates a detailed implementation project plan which will monitor progress and ensure action is

taken to successfully complete Focus Area #1 of the TELP. An external Project Manager is recommended if workload or the skillset of existing staff require additional assistance.

The TELT, working with the new Communication Manager, creates and begins to execute a communication plan to ensure all stakeholders understand the TELP Vision and Focus Areas, and how the plan will be monitored and assessed.

151

Project Milestones:


January through June 2013: Any hiring / staffing changes related to the TIL role changing to SBIF, or to the hiring of additional Learning

Coaches are implemented during January staffing exercise. The SDRAT will need to:

• Create standards for the software categories that will initially support Focus Area #1• Review the appropriateness of existing software to identify existing gaps / eliminate unnecessary titles• Refine, test and sign-off on the appropriate teacher and student image to support Focus Area #1• Define requirements for a digital repository. This includes researching current ones on the market, and

recommend which one best meets the needs of the division The TELT selects the appropriate devices for teacher and student access in Focus Area #1 The Physical Implementation Team

• Creates the image for student and teacher devices based on software recommendations from the SDRAT• Image teacher devices if they are to be given to teachers before the summer break

The PDAT will: • Review / refine the professional development plan recommended in this report• Present the final recommended learning plans to the TELT and ultimately the division leadership team for

approval of both finances and resources. • Commence with the initial PD sessions for division / supporting staff and instructional leaders • In May/June, if approved, commence with Session One, Introduction to Laptops to all staff members that are

physically receiving their device before the summer break.

June through August 2013 (and ongoing): The SDRAT will:

• For Focus Area #1, populate the digital repository with resources that will support the K to 3 teachers in their instructional practices and the students in their learning

The PDAT will: • Assess the effectiveness of the professional development plan as it is recommended to inform future PLC’s and

also to inform decisions related to additional PD that may be needed.• Ensure ongoing coaching sessions are underway for division / supporting staff and instructional leaders

152

Project Milestones:


August-September 2013: The Physical Implementation Team will install all required peripherals for Focus Area #1 grades and image

devices for teachers (if this has not already been done) and students

September 2013: Teachers in the Grades K to 3 attend session one and receive their device (if they did not receive them

prior to the summer break) Teachers, division staff and instructional leaders will participate in ongoing professional development

sessions as defined in this report. The TELT will begin to monitor the success of the project using the objective and subjective measurement

tools described earlier in this report. The TELT reports to the leadership team on a monthly (or bimonthly) basis on all progress made. The ELC monitors progress and ensures budget is available for the initiatives defined in the TELP.

March-April 2014: Senior leadership, with advice from the TELT, determines if Focus Area #2 in this report will be

implemented in the coming school year (Sept 2014 to June 2015) and ensures it is reflected in the budgeting process.

May-June 2014: The TELT continues to asses Focus Area #1 using identified measures and prepares a report to go to

senior leadership in June 2014.

153

Project Milestones:

Northwest School Division and IBM Confidential November 1, 2012 Technology Enabled Learning Plan In...

Documents

Transcript of Northwest School Division and IBM Confidential November 1, 2012 Technology Enabled Learning Plan In...