Team+1+-+Needs


 * __ TECHNOLOGY NEEDS ASSESSMENT __**

** Part 1: Key Process Questions **
 * What evaluation process is the district using to make decisions regarding the needs for purchasing telecommunications, hardware, software, and other technology resources and services? **

USD 325 uses ongoing, interval and annual quantitative and qualitative assessments and observations to determine needs of its users (staff, students, parents and community) to make decisions regarding acquisition/upgrade/replacements and deployment of technology resources in support of the educational and administrative needs of the district. (See Part 2: Summary of Data Collection and Resulting Decisions, Pg.13)


 * What target groups are surveyed and how often? **
 * Quantitative surveys of all stakeholders (students, staff, parents and community members) are conducted annually for technology needs assessment
 * Special project or trend surveys are conducted around special or current topics and before and after pilot projects
 * Walkthroughs are conducted at set intervals, by request/invitation or spontaneously
 * Teacher requests come via email, phone calls, walk-ins or face to face contact on an ongoing daily basis
 * How does the district ensure equitable distribution of technologies throughout the district? **
 * Pilot projects are implemented based on needs established through above outlined process, through staff or stakeholder interest/request, or as a result of identified curriculum, student or classroom or products or projects
 * Resources are deployed when supported by research based best practices and/or when demonstrated instructional and learning impact is supported through pilot projects (email, laptops, school websites, Interactive Whiteboards, projectors, wireless access etc)
 * Non-certified staff members receive current hardware and software on the same rotation cycle as staff and students. They participate in district in-services applicable to their roles, and the district provides small group or one to one training for them. These staffers also have opportunities to attend trainings offered by the state department and our service center.
 * How does the collected data influence planning for future use of resources, and acquisition of new technologies? Prioritized by? **
 * Data collected will be aligned with the district mission, vision, short term and school improvement goals and Technology Goals and Objectives. Priorities will be based on the needs of the student population served, impact on learning/instruction, innovation (doing new things as opposed to doing the same old things with different stuff), and return on investment. This process led to the decision to pilot iPads during the 2011-12 school year. The evaluations related to that pilot will determine the infrastructure, hardware, software and professional development implementations in our 1 to 1 for 2012-13.

** Part 2: Summary of data collection and resulting decisions **

 * Summary of data collection and resulting decisions from ongoing assessments **
 * Administrator’s walk-through observation data collected via Google forms on iPads
 * IT staff, Building Tech Assistant and Cart Monitor Reports
 * Staff, student and other stakeholder requests (file sharing, student email, flash drives, allowed websites, professional development, in-services, list serves, grading and assessments, other resources, podcast and video broadcasts)
 * // Conversations with Cyndi // - Qualitative evaluation of learning with technology implemented this fall as 2 day onsite visit and stakeholder conversations with groups of Administrators, staff and students district-wide facilitated by Cyndi Danner-Kuhn
 * Formal and informal sharing and reflections on pilot project implementations (digital cameras in classrooms, mobile learning labs, mounted vs. mobile projectors, Airliner slates, interactive whiteboards, document cameras, professional learning networks, iPad user group projects)
 * Results Based Staff Development Evaluations as part of MyLearningPlan our multi-featured professional development online database is in implementation
 * Parent Teacher Conference data and evaluations
 * Weekly Administrators meetings and scheduled staff meeting issues and successes
 * Special events – Q & A, meetings, student/staff presentations
 * Productivity and work flow needs of all staff – SIS (PowerSchool and PowerTeacher), Accounting, Attendance, Grades, Lunch/Nutrition programs, State Reporting and more

Building administrators continuously monitor technology use and integration by staff and students via Principal/Administrator walk-throughs, informal classroom observations and formal teacher evaluations. Use of Google forms accessed on iPads make this data collection easier and we hope more accessible to the entire leadership team.

Teachers continuously monitor and adjust instruction to gauge and increase student engagement and choice as they interact with and use technology to complete assignments and projects in all curriculum content areas.

The District Technology Coordinator and building Tech Assistants communicate directly with teachers, staff, students and patrons about what is working and not working for instruction and learning in individual classroom and building environments. This IT team then works with administrators to allocate funding and complete deployment of additional or updated infrastructure, hardware, software and professional development.

Staff, students and patrons contact the IT staff directly via email, text, phone or walk ins to report issues and request help, training or repairs.

These ongoing assessments are definitely **quantitative:** // I am short two laptops for my 3rd hour class. // // My wireless connection drops us off in the middle of third hour 2 or 3 times a week. // // My speakers no longer work. // // We need 3 more sets of headsets in the elementary lab. //

These are also **qualitative** assessments that we value as relationship based and critical to relationship building as reflected in our Technology Vision Statement: // Mr. Smith let me show you what we learned about steam engines. // // Mrs. Jones, check out our group video project in response to Lord of the Flies. // // Mr. John, 4th grade just posted their weekly video to Mrs. K’s webpage. // // Mrs. Adams, scan the QR code on my poster – You’ll see my video book review of Mockingjay! // // I want to do this sort of project with my students, but students need individual email accounts. //


 * __ As a result __** of these ongoing quantitative and qualitative assessments the district has included secured student email accounts, mobile device management, increased hardware access and increased technology integration support to its e-rate bid requests, lease proposals, network bandwidth and staff resource allocations plans.

In the fall of 2011, the district invited our higher education technology committee representative, Cyndi Danner-Kuhn to facilitate the first of continuing small group conversations with students, staff and administrators during a 2-day onsite visit. Three needs emerged consistently from the //Conversations with Cyndi//:
 * 1) Need for 1 to 1 access, especially grades 3-12
 * 2) Need to see how other districts implement and integrate 1 to 1 technology deployments
 * 3) Need for more time and professional development focused on effective use of digital tools and resources in the classroom with students

=** Summary of data collection and resulting decisions from interval assessments: **=
 * __ As a result __** the district has sent three teams of teachers and administrators to visit other school districts with exemplary, emerging or innovating initiatives and to attend Best Practices in Implementation and Integration at the ESSDACK service center in Hutchinson. Feedback from these teams is shaping policy revisions, purchase proposals, deployment and professional development plans.
 * [|LoTi] (Levels of Technology Implementation Framework online assessment) Integration User Group surveys.
 * [|Quia] surveys developed locally to collect data annually form all stakeholders including students, staff, parents and community members

The LoTi Profiler was first used by our district during the 2008-09 school year. The majority of teachers who completed the first LoTi Profiler (69 %) identified all skill sets as a mid-level priority. At that time only the staff at the elementary school (18 of 58 or 31% of participants) indicated a high-level priority for Professional Growth and Leadership – defined by ISTE as the need to "continuously improve professional practice, model lifelong learning, and exhibit leadership in their school and professional community by promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources."

In contrast, data collected on the 2011-12 LoTi Profiler assessment show that Professional Growth and Leadership has emerged as a high-level priority district wide with 93% of teachers (42 of 45 participants) indicating that skill set as a high-level priority while all other skill sets remained at 2008-09 mid-level priority.

We can conclude that because only the elementary school received our original Tech Rich Classroom grant they were the first to feel the impact of that technology infused learning environment. We can also conclude that as technology access and integration was extended into the middle and high schools, those teachers also identified similar needs priorities.


 * __ As a result __** decisions have been made to focus on modeling lifelong learning through effective use of digital tools and resources to improve and increase Rigor, Relevance, Relationships, Communication, Collaboration, Critical Thinking and Creativity in all our district’s classrooms.

Finally, our locally developed Quia surveys have been redesigned to collect quantitative data that measures progress toward our goals and guides technology purchases and deployments that support 21st Century skills. The five-week survey window opened Oct. 17th and closed Nov. 28th, 2011.

Questions on this survey specifically reference the 3Rs and 4Cs that are at the heart of our current Technology Vision, District Mission and building level School Improvement plans. A survey was developed for each target group (student, staff, parent and community member). The first question on each survey identified the role of the respondent. Question 2-20 were the same on all surveys except for appropriate pronoun/phrases indicating the targeted respondent groups:

Results from 105 respondents in targeted groups (26 students, 52 staff, 24 parents and 3 community members) are displayed in this chart. Lower numbers on the response grid indicate stronger agreement that the district is meeting its goals for integrating technology in support of curriculum, instruction and learning focused on the 3Rs (Rigor, Relevance, Relationships) and the 4Cs (Communication, Collaboration, Critical Thinking and Creativity).
 * USD 325 Technology Survey **
 * 1) The technology currently provided by the district for teaching and learning is adequate.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Staff and students should be given more opportunity to use mobile technologies (tablets, cell phones, cloud storage and retrieval, and social networking) for instruction, learning and performance assessments.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology in the classroom has made student learning more rigorous.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology in the classroom has made instruction and learning more relevant.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology in the classroom has provided opportunity for me to develop stronger, healthier relationships with others.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology in the classroom has increased the opportunity for me to communicate - sharing thoughts, questions, ideas, and solutions.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology in the classroom has increased the opportunity for student collaboration, allowing us to work together using our unique talents and expertise to reach a goal.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology in the classroom has improved my critical thinking skills - I look at problems in new ways and I am able to link my learning across subjects and disciplines.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology in the classroom has sparked my creativity; I try new approaches to getting things done. I am an innovator and inventor!
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) I have more access to a wider variety of hardware and software in my classrooms now than I had 3 years ago.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) I take advantage of district support for using technology to complete my assignments, check my grades, and communicate with my teachers. (Online skills tutorials, PowerSchool student login, etc.)
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology in the classrooms has improved my reading, writing and communication skills.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology in the classrooms has improved my mathematical skills.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology in the classrooms has improved my social studies skills.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) My teachers design learning activities that allow me to choose from a variety of technologies to demonstrate my understanding of content and concepts in the curriculum.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Teachers use technology to create new and different learning experiences for students.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology has increased the frequency and quality of teacher interactions and communications with me and my parents.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) Using technology in our classrooms has improved student performance on state assessments so we continue to meet Adequate Yearly Progress goals and benchmarks.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * 1) My teachers understand and follow copyright laws and practice and model ethics relating to the use of computers, networks, Internet, and email.
 * || ** 1 ** || ** 2 ** || ** 3 ** || ** 4 ** || ** 5 ** ||  ||
 * ** Strongly agree ** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || ** Strongly disagree ** ||
 * Summary of survey results (Chart and Narrative) **

Responses on all questions from all respondents trend toward the center of the agreement grid – with most respondents neither in strong agreement or strong disagreement with district goal achievement. Of all respondent groups, students tend to agree more strongly than any other group that the district is meeting its goals. Parent, staff and community groups respectively trend toward disagreement. This raises questions and concerns about both communication of goals and degree of success in reaching those goals.

High numbered responses from 3 of 4 groups to questions 4 (rigor in the curriculum), 12 (personal responsibility for learning choices) and 16 (choice of hardware, software, and mobile/cloud tools) indicate that the district has the highest need for improvement in those areas.

.
 * __ As a result __** of both the trends and the “spikes” in data from these surveys, from the LoTi results, responses to //Conversations with Cyndi//, and other ongoing assessments the district will focus on the following specific, measurable data driven decisions:
 * Implement a 1 to 1 student device initiative (Question 16) for grades 9-12 by 2013 and grades 5-12 by 2015 so students have increased access to more choices in hardware, software and mobility to meet their learning goals (Goal 3, Objective 3.2)
 * Provide professional development and support targeting increased rigor (Question 4) by employing HOTS to gain more depth of understanding through implementation of the common core standards in all content areas (Goal 2, Objective 2.3)
 * Initiate challenge based learning opportunities for students to seek out the expertise of others (Question 12) so they acquire the 21st century skills to identify a problem or issue, research it until it becomes their own and through collaboration and communication discover creative and innovative solutions to the problem (Goal 2, Objective 2.2)
 * Bring all responses on the local Technology Needs Assessment Survey at or below 2.0 on the response grid by the end of 2013, at or below 1.5 by 2014, and at or below 1.0 by 2015.

= =