Fairfax County (VA) Council of PTAs

The FCPS FY 1999 Technology Plan is a significant improvement in format, content, analysis, and approach over the past plans. Our report analyzes the Technology Plan by using the criteria presented in School Technology and Readiness Report: From Pillars to Progress (the STaR Report, see Pages 1 - 5 for details). The five performance areas are hardware, connectivity, digital content, professional development, and integration and use. These five combined lead to educational benefits, ranging from the mastery of basic skills in a school with a low tech profile, to student-centered, authentic, project-based, collaborative learning, and students and teachers communicating with parents, experts, other students, and teachers outside the school in a target technology school.

HARDWARE (Pages 8 - 10). To establish a more precise definition of hardware needs FCPS Department of Information Technology staff developed technology profiles for elementary, middle, and high schools. The target hardware level for each school is a function of the number of classrooms, teachers, computer labs, administrative offices, ESL and special education students, and type and number of course offerings. The profiles are an excellent step toward defining need in relationship to curriculum.

Based on these figures, FCPS system-wide is at only 32% of the target. However, there is a significant difference between elementary, middle, and high school in what percentage of the target goal has been achieved. Middle schools are at the low end, with only 22% of the target, while high schools, alternative schools, and centers are at the high end. The FCCPTA is particularly concerned about the middle school technology gap. It appears that many students are leaving elementary schools that have reasonable access to technology and moving into middle schools with very limited access; this is bound to be disruptive to their educational development. The FCCPTA strongly urges the Strategic Technology Planning Council to reconsider its criteria for allocation of hardware to focus on middle and elementary school programs.

There is a difficult balance to maintain in allocating computers to individual schools. If allocations are made solely on the basis of reducing inequities, then schools that have taken the initiative to acquire computers on their own will be penalized and those that have not made the effort will be rewarded. On the other hand, if equity is not a consideration, the children themselves will be penalized. For the FCCPTA the bottom line is the consequences for our children. For the sake of our children we believe that computers should be allocated on the basis of equity whenever possible.

CONNECTIVITY (Pages 11 - 12). The second of the five components of the successful technology-rich school is connectivity. Throughout FCPS over 18,000 computers are now connected to the Internet. The numbers of computers with access to both local and Internet-based networking has increased significantly in the past two fiscal years, and is proposed to increase significantly again in the FY 1999 Technology Plan. FCPS has reached a level of connectivity that allows efficiency improvements in its operations through application of distance learning techniques. The FCCPTA recommends that FCPS explore possible future uses of the Internet to offer courses through distance learning.

In past reports the FCCPTA has urged establishment of an e-mail system that would allow parents and teachers to communicate via e-mail. This capability now exists in many of our schools, but is not widely used. Some school staff have expressed concern about parent-teacher e-mail, feeling that if it is used to discuss homework assignments it would reduce the student’s responsibility. The FCCPTA believes that this is a small risk compared to the tremendous benefits that could occur if e-mail were available to enable teachers and parents to consult on an individual student’s academic progress. The FCCPTA strongly supports the use of e-mail to enhance home-school communications, and recommends that schools begin to routinely collect e-mail addresses as they now routinely collect telephone numbers.

CONTENT (Pages 13 - 14). Without hardware and Internet connections, there could be no content. With content we begin to get at the heart of the issue of improving educational performance through technology. A thorough review of the range of computer software applications currently used in FCPS merits additional study over the next year, and we suggest it be undertaken jointly by the Education and Technology Chairs of the FCCPTA.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (Pages 14 - 16). Good hardware, good connections, and good content are all to no avail if teachers don’t know how to use them effectively in the classroom. Nor should the role of the principal as an advocate for and leader in technology integration be under-estimated. The successful use of technology in schools requires a substantial commitment to staff development to achieve high results from investment in technology. The FCCPTA’s analysis indicates that FCPS is seriously under-funding technology-related staff development, and possibly risking the effective implementation of technology in our schools.

At present FCPS has no method for assessing technology skills. However, in three years all FCPS teachers must be competent in the eight Virginia Standards of Technology in order to be re-certified. If the full benefit of technology is to be realized, FCPS needs to make a more thorough assessment of its staff development needs in the area of technology. The FCCPTA strongly encourages FCPS to incorporate assessments of staff development needs into the school technology profile.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT (Pages 16 - 17). Although technical support is included within the category of professional development in the STaR Chart, the FCCPTA feels it is of sufficient importance to discuss separately. It is also a continuing shortfall of the FCPS technology program, although it is recognized as such and much effort and money has been spent in the past year to improve technical support to schools and offices.

Many schools now have a local area network, access to the wide area network, and hundreds of computers, yet the School Board has yet to fund full-time school-based positions for our schools. The FCCPTA reiterates its recommendation from its FY 1999 proposed budget analysis that each school with a critical number of computers be allocated an additional staffing position. The FCCPTA believes this needs to be a professional level position, on either the US or the teacher salary scale. The Fairfax schools that are using technology effectively are doing so largely because they have been willing to make the staffing sacrifices to have at least one full-time technology support person.

THE TECHNOLOGY PLAN: RECOMMENDATIONS ON FORMAT AND CONTENT (Pages 17 - 18). The format and descriptive material in the FY 1999 Technology Plan are greatly improved over those of the FY 1998 Integrated Technology Plan. The Strategic Technology Planning Council (STPC) is to be commended for its work in this area, and for its demonstration of how a well-structured team representing the technical, general education, and special education departments of FCPS central staff can together effectively plan and coordinate. The actor missing in this process is the parent. The FCCPTA is sensitive to the belief of STPC members that a major element in their effectiveness has been their relatively small size. Nevertheless, the FCCPTA recommends that a mechanism for obtaining parent input on technology issues be developed. The FCCPTA is interested in working with the STPC to devise such a mechanism.

The FCCPTA also recommends making the Technology Plan a more comprehensive, "one-stop" source of information on technology activities in FCPS. We believe that, given the newness of the emphasis on technology, and the level of funding for technology, this one-stop approach is necessary. In time, as technology funding becomes part of an ongoing process integrated into all aspects of the school system, this may cease to be necessary. Details on the information the FCCPTA recommends including in the plan are on Page 18.

BENEFITS. Without measurements of the benefits associated with the use of technology there is no way of determining if our investments in technology are effective. The STaR Report states "there is a pressing need to develop new measurement tools capable of more fully describing the effect of technology on learning." We recommend that reports on progress toward developing measurement tools, and on the results of the measurements, be included in future Technology Plans.

CONCLUSIONS. The most important points of this report can be described in three words: equity, staff development, and benefits. Our analysis has shown that equity continues to be a significant problem in the allocation of technology resources--which we define to include not only hardware but technologically capable humans--both among schools and across school levels. An equitable distribution of technology resources should be the goal, and technology resources include humans and hardware. Future allocations of funds should consider both the human and hardware components of equity, and achievement of equity should be the most important criteria for allocating resources.

Our analysis has also shown that we are seriously under-investing in technology-related staff development. If we are to fully reap the benefits of our already substantial investments in technology, we have to increase our investment in the human side of technology. And finally, we must begin the difficult process of defining the benefits we expect and measuring the benefits we actually reap from our investment in technology.

THE COMPUTER IN THE CLASSROOM:
A POWERFUL TOOL FOR IMPROVEMENT AND CHANGE

INTRODUCTION

The FCPS FY 1999 Technology Plan is a significant improvement in format, content, analysis, and approach over the past plans. The $22.5 million in proposed new expenditures, and the $30.1 million in ongoing expenditures to support the Department of Information Technology, represent 4.6% of total FCPS expenditures. With these funds, FCPS is working toward three objectives:

Superior student learning through technology. Technology should provide readily available tools that are an integral part of the teaching and learning processes.
Effective and efficient teaching and school management through technology. Technology should be fully integrated into all aspects of teaching and into managing safe, secure, and efficient schools.
Effective and efficient school division operation through technology. Technology should be used to improve planning and decision making, to increase management efficiency, and to reduce operating costs. Information should flow easily among schools, the community, and central offices.

Both the private and public sectors have made substantial investments in information technology over the past 20 years. Many believe that the recent, long-lasting period of economic growth in the United States is partially attributable to the efficiency benefits being reaped by decades of private sector investment in computers. Although schools have lagged behind the rest of the public sector and the private sector in integrating technology into all aspects of the daily functioning of a school, in the past five years school systems around the United States have more than doubled their investment in information technology.

The motivation behind investment in computer technology for schools at all levels are:

Demonstrated benefits for students using computers to acquire basic skills and practice applications of those skills.
Expansion of research resources available to students and teachers through multi-media and on-line computers. Student-initiated research and learner-centered activities, critical elements in a classroom emphasizing cross-disciplinary approaches and application of basic knowledge to a broad variety of problems, are facilitated by using computers.
Demand by colleges, many of which now require a computer as standard equipment for incoming students, and among employers, for graduating students highly skilled in the use of computers.
Reduction of the teacher's workload through the use of technology to perform administrative tasks, to communicate with other teachers, and to communicate with students and their families.

However, these benefits do not accrue simply because a computer has been purchased and installed in a classroom. Just as employees had to be trained and work restructured in the private sector in response to the changes that technology brings to the workplace, school staff must be trained and curriculum (the student's "work") must be restructured.

This report will review the characteristics of school districts that have successfully integrated a high level of information technology into their schools. Then we will describe the content of the FY 1999 Technology Plan for FCPS, followed by an analysis of how we stack up against the characteristics of a successful technology-rich school system, and what we need to do in the future to ensure that our investments in information technology are used effectively.

WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHEN IT IS DONE WELL?

Moving our students, teachers, their classrooms, and the offices that support them into the information age is a gargantuan task. It takes good planning, lots of money, and a system that assesses and reassesses its progress as it proceeds through its plans. Most of the information currently available on assessment of investment in technology in schools focuses on the classroom and instructional side of that investment. What follows in this section is reflective of the predominant approach in the literature. However, a significant portion of FCPS technology expenditures is for administrative functions. We will discuss these expenditures, but unfortunately have not found any guidelines for recommended balances between instructional and administrative technology investments.

More specific criteria for evaluating the use of technology in schools are presented in the October 1997 School Technology and Readiness Report: From Pillars to Progress (the STaR Report). This report was prepared by the CEO Forum on Education and Technology, a partnership between U.S. business and education leaders formed to make a difference in American schools. This year's report is the first of four annual issues and involved an assessment of the state of technology integration in almost 80,000 public schools. The STaR Report's analysis is based on five areas of performance:

1) Hardware, or the number and type of computers per student, as well as the availability of maintenance;

2) Connectivity, or the availability of a local area network, Internet connections, and connection speed;

3) Digital content, the availability of various computer applications for learning, from drill and practice software to applications for creativity, simulation, research, and networked communication.

4) Professional development, defined by the number of hours of training, the number of years of experience with technology, and the nature of technical support.

5) Integration and use, with the variants being the role of the teacher, the pattern of student technology use, the pattern of teacher technology use, and class length.

These five combined lead to:

6) Education benefits, ranging from the mastery of basic skills in a school with a low tech profile, to student-centered, authentic project-based learning, collaborative learning, and students and teachers communicating with parents, experts, other students, and teachers outside the school in a target technology school.

The STaR Chart, shown in the following pages, uses these six areas to describe technology presence, use, and integration at four different levels of effectiveness, ranging from the "Low Technology" school that uses technology primarily for administrative functions, to the "Target Technology" school that integrates technology throughout the curriculum. The STaR Chart also defines the educational benefits each level of technology integration offers. The chart can help a school identify its current educational technology profile and, based on the educational outcomes it values, target its future profile. These criteria help move the focus of planning and assessment away from hardware and head counts to a more comprehensive assessment of use.

The STaR criteria provide a framework to assess FCPS's progress toward fully utilizing technology to achieve its educational objectives. FCPS can determine its current status in each of the indicators and use that information to plan and budget. The STaR Report authors assessed nearly 80,000 public schools nationwide and found that almost 60% of U.S. schools are "Low Tech," lacking adequate classroom technology. Only 3% of schools nationwide have fully integrated technology into the classroom.

How does FCPS measure overall? Each of these areas will be discussed in more detail below, but an "eyeball" assessment is useful to begin. In the hardware area, FCPS has sufficient high-end and total computers to fall in the "Target Tech" area for middle and high schools but not for elementary schools (see Figure 1). In the other hardware areas, such as students per multi-media computer, students per CD-ROM, and maintenance, however, we are still at a lower level.

In terms of connectivity, all of our schools have at a minimum an Internet connection in the library. Many schools have additional Internet connections in computer laboratories, and all have at least the lowest level of e-mail. Access to digital content is partially determined by access to hardware and Internet connections. In some schools, at some levels, and in some courses, there is access to the full range of digital content shown in the STaR Chart. However, in most schools access to the highest levels of computer uses--simulation, research, and productivity applications--is intermittent.

In the area of professional development, our record is again quite irregular. Some teachers have the level of expertise to meet the STaR criteria for the highest "invention level" skill stage. However, "just-in-time" technical support is not a characteristic of our system. Assessment of the final category, Integration and Use, is far more difficult and cannot be done by the FCCPTA in this report. However, given the inconsistent distribution of hardware and Internet connections, the uneven level of professional development in technology areas, and our consistent underfunding of technical support and maintenance, it is unlikely that as a system we have managed to achieve consistent integration of technology in any one school, with the possible exception of some of our older, well-established magnet programs such as Bailey's Elementary School and Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. And even Bailey's was just recently fully connected to the Internet, with connections in each classroom.

This brief assessment indicates not only that there are ongoing equity issues that must be addressed, but that equity is a much deeper problem than just the distribution of high-end computers. Equity must be judged by access to all the components of the target technology profile, and by the successful use of those components to achieve the education benefits described in the STaR Chart. The FCPS FY 1999 Technology Plan should be analyzed with these criteria in mind, and in light of how they help move FCPS towards the Target Technology Profile of the STaR report.

OVERVIEW OF THE FY 1999 TECHNOLOGY PLAN

The FY 1999 Technology Plan is a significant improvement over earlier plans. It includes, for the first time, a statement of goals, objectives, and benefits, and has begun to define measurable indicators for determining if these objectives are met. It has a longer range outlook, including plans for the next six years. It incorporates an assessment of where we are now, including for the first time an inventory of the computers in FCPS schools. It is based on technology profiles for elementary, middle, and high schools, alternative schools, and special education centers, that tie enrollment, programs, and staffing together to define the number and type of computers needed at each school. This targeted level of computers has then been compared to actual numbers of computers in the schools to determine the technology gap.

We commend FCPS staff for the tremendous progress they have made in refining the planning process for implementation of technology in FCPS. However, there are still many miles to go before we reach the goal of a technology-rich school system, and some of the elements key to reaching that goal are not sufficiently addressed in the Technology Plan.

The FY 1999 Technology Plan and related documents can be downloaded from the FCPS web site at http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/IT/pubs/index.htm, so we will not repeat the details of this document here. However, a summary of the key expenditure areas of the plan and a comparison of those with the levels recommended by planners as necessary for achieving a technology-rich school environment are included here. (The data and figures in this report are based on March 1998 information. April 1998 data are now available on the Department of Information Technology section of the FCPS web-site.)

Total FCPS technology-related expenditures are not presented in detail in any one location. Details on the operating expenses for the Department of Information Technology (DIT) are contained in the FCPS FY 1999 Proposed Budget. An overview of the additional proposed expenditures in the Technology Plan is also included, which was supplemented through the later release of the Technology Plan. Staff development funding for technology-related training, much of which is independent of the specific training included as part of the new projects funded in the Technology Plan, is not broken out separately.

Each pyramid has two positions, for a total of 46 positions, that support school-based technology. One, the pyramid technology training specialist, supports local technology staff development needs and the other, the technical specialist, provides maintenance and technical support. The expenditures on these positions are not included in the Technology Plan. The pyramid trainer positions are included in the Area Office budgets, and the technical specialists, for the time being at least, are under DIT allocations in the FY 1999 proposed budget.

In addition, it appears that almost all schools have designated a local staff person as technology coordinator or the equivalent. This has been done in a wide variety of ways. Some schools use an instructional aide position to do this; some have released teachers from some or all of their teaching responsibilities to focus on technology; some use parent and community volunteers; some schools have converted a teaching position to a technology coordinator position; and some schools have assigned the responsibility to other full-time staff members. None of these technology-related expenditures is included in any of the technology budget information.

There are also expenditures on technology-related equipment and infrastructure in the capital side of the budget as well. Unfortunately, we have been unable to identify most of the staff development and technology-related capital expenditures.

We estimate that FCPS has proposed spending $54.2 million for technology as part of its FY 1999 Advertised Budget: $22.5 million through the amended FY 1999 Technology Plan, plus more than $30.1 million for DIT in the FY 1999 FCPS Advertised Budget (see Figure 2). This estimate is based only on expenditures from the School Operating Fund, and as such is lower than actual expenditures. It does not include any school-based staffing that the schools themselves have established. There are small amounts in other areas of the proposed budget, such as in school-based staff development, which should also be considered technology funding.

The FY 1999 expenditures represent a slight increase over FY 1998; in FY 1998 technology expenditures were about 4.5% of the total School Operating Fund. This percentage rises to slightly over 4.6% proposed for FY 1999. In the Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States by the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Educational Technology (March 1997), it was recommended that at least 5% of all educational spending be earmarked for technology-related expenses on an ongoing basis. If FCPS were to spend 5% of the FY 1999 Proposed Budget, technology-related spending would be at $58.9 million, a difference of $4.7 million.

Most analyses of successful technology-rich schools recommend that approximately 30% of the technology budget be spent on staff development. FCPS does not break down its staff development expenditures in a way that permits precise assignment of expenditures to technology and non-technology subjects. Of the $22.5 in the FY 1999 Technology Plan, only $1.3 million is for staff development. In addition, DIT will spend another $237,000 on training its own staff. There are other technology-related courses included in the regular FCPS staff development offerings that are part of the $2.6 million expenditure on the FCPS Academy Courses, and schools have approximately $3,000 each for locally-determined staff development uses, some of which may be used for technology areas. In addition, the pyramid technology staff positions conduct some training, and many schools have converted a teaching position to a technology coordinator position. This person also trains school staff and provides on-site, ongoing support for technology integration efforts.

At a minimum, FCPS is spending only 6% of its technology funds on staff development, about one-fifth of the recommended level. Even if half of the FCPS Academy courses and local staff development funds are used for technology (probably a high estimate), total technology staff development would double, but still only be 9% of all technology expenditures.

The successful use of technology in schools requires a substantial commitment to staff development to achieve high results from a school's investment in technology. These figures indicate that FCPS is seriously under-funding technology-related staff development, and possibly risking the effective implementation of technology in our schools. Further discussion of this topic may be found in the section on professional development later in this report.

The projects contained within the FY 1999 Technology Plan are categorized into four areas: instruction and learning, supporting technology, technology infrastructure, and replacement. The distribution of technology expenditures among these categories is shown in Figure 3. Expenditures on Instruction and Learning uses will increase over 50% in FY 1999; expenditures on supporting technology will increase slightly, while the other two areas will drop significantly.

The distribution of Instruction and Learning expenditures on technology is shown in Figure 4. High schools received the bulk of the investment in both FY 1998 and FY 1999, although elementary schools will receive almost as much in FY 1999. The increase in this category is due primarily to the establishment of additional technical support capacity, a much needed effort and a key component of the "Target Tech" school from the STaR Report. Of the 24 new staff positions that will be created as part of this effort, 18 of them are school-based. The remaining six will be placed in area offices and central departments. Three additional positions will be out-sourced to provide Help Center assistance. Elementary school level funding also will increase, due primarily to a higher level of funding for the Elementary Model Technology School project. (Additional details on funding are available at the FCPS web-site, referenced previously.)

The major items of expenditure in Supporting Technology are the Human Resources Information System, a new computerized system for personnel and payroll functions and the continued implementation of the Student Information System (SASI). SASI is in its second year of implementation, with full implementation to be completed in all schools in FY 2000. (See Figure 5.) Technology infrastructure expenditures will be focused principally on continued upgrading of FCPS Internet capabilities, and a pilot Internet content filtering effort.

HARDWARE

Because hardware is the first building block in integrating technology into a school system, too many analyses have focused principally on distribution of hardware. As we have emphasized already, hardware is only one of five elements of a successful effort to integrate technology into the daily activities of a school. The overall numbers presented indicate that FCPS as a whole has reached the "Target Tech" level in students per computer, defined by the StaR Report as a computer with a 386 processor. FCPS defines its high-end computers as having a 486 processor or higher, so the categories are not congruent.

In an effort to establish a more precise definition of need--one that determines the need for computers based on a combination of enrollment, programs, and staffing, FCPS Department of Information Technology staff have developed technology profiles for elementary, middle, and high schools. These profiles, although not yet finalized, establish a target level of hardware, including computer work stations, local printers, high-speed printers, servers, and portable keyboards. The target for each school will be a function of the number of classrooms, teachers, computer labs, administrative offices, ESL and special education students, and type and number of course offerings. The profiles are an excellent step toward defining need in relationship to curriculum.

The technology profiles also provide a measure of where FCPS is and where it's going, school by school. The FY 1999 Technology Plan initiatives, summarized by each school's acquisition of computers under each project, can then be mapped against each school's technology profile and inventory to determine its current status and program-driven need. In addition, using these hardware targets, FCPS can compare the current level of hardware in each school with the target level. The results indicate that FCPS still has tremendous problems with equitable distribution of computers among schools.

The data in Figure 6 are based on the most recently revised profiles, but are nevertheless still tentative. Schools and departments are still validating the profiles, which should be finalized by the end of the school year and in place for planning for the coming year. Based on these figures, system-wide we are at only 32% of the target. However, there is a significant difference between elementary, middle, and high school in what percentage of the target goal has been achieved. Middle schools are at the low end, with only 22% of the target, while high schools, alternative schools, and centers are at the high end.

Within each level there are further variations (see Figure 7). Very few schools system-wide are over 60% of target; slightly over half our schools are under 30% of the target. There are proportionately more middle schools under 30% of target than among any other groups; moreover, there is only one middle school even over 40% of the target level, and none over 60%. And on a percentage basis, more than twice as many high schools have reached 60% of the target level as elementary schools.

While the FY 1999 Technology Plan uses the school profiles as a way to define need for hardware in FCPS, the profiles were not used in determining which schools received computers from Technology Plan initiatives. The decision on allocation of hardware is made at various different levels. Classroom computers required to support particular curriculum areas (e.g., the geosystems and biology classes) are assigned to specific schools by the Department of Instructional Services using a lottery system. Computers for more general uses--multi-media workstations for computer laboratories, ESL computers, and the Elementary Model Technology Program--are assigned by the area offices and are also done using a lottery system.

The additional computers anticipated to be purchased under the Technology Plan are shown in Figure 8. Again, these figures are tentative. They are based on January 1998 prices; hardware prices are currently declining and the School Board has modified the Technology Plan in its advertised budget, so the figures should be considered indicative, not exact. These allocation patterns further exacerbate the inequities already described. High schools will receive the bulk of the computers, yet they are already closer to target than any other group. Middle schools will receive the lowest share relative to their gap, yet they are furthest away from target. Given that school-by-school allocations are determined by lottery, there is little likelihood that inequities within each school level will diminish either.

There is a difficult balance to maintain in allocating computers to individual schools. Some schools have many computers because their staff and parents have made a concerted effort to find outside sources of funding, hardware, and software. Other schools may not yet have the physical infrastructure to install many computers in the classroom. Others may not have many computers because computer acquisition has not been a focus of the school's administration or parents. If allocations are made solely on the basis of reducing inequities, then schools that have taken the initiative to acquire computers on their own will be penalized and those that have not made the effort will be rewarded. On the other hand, if equity is not a consideration, the children themselves will be penalized.

For the FCCPTA the bottom line is the consequences for our children. In a perfect world schools would be rewarded for their initiative and children in schools without computers would get them as well. Although the FCCPTA would like to reward those good schools, for the sake of our children we believe that computers should be allocated on the basis of equity whenever possible. Even allocation of computers tied to specific courses should be done, when possible, with equity in mind, giving computers to those schools with the lowest share of target first. At the same time, the FCCPTA suggests that a portion of the Technology Plan funding be set aside as "grant" funds to be awarded to schools with outstanding technology programs.

Moreover, the pattern of technology hardware funding is precisely opposite that recommended by The Harvard Education Letter. We may have good reasons for emphasizing high school funding over elementary funding, but it should at least be explicitly discussed. We are particularly concerned about the middle school technology gap. It appears that many students are leaving elementary schools that have reasonable access to technology and moving into middle schools with very limited access; this is bound to be disruptive to their educational development. The FCCPTA strongly urges the Strategic Technology Planning Council to reconsider its criteria for allocation of hardware to focus on middle and elementary school programs.

CONNECTIVITY

The second of the five components of the successful technology-rich school is connectivity. The "Target Tech" level requires classroom access to a local area network and Internet access through a high-speed dedicated line. FCPS is well along toward becoming a "Target Tech" school as defined in the STaR connectivity indicators, despite ongoing equity issues which must still be addressed. Throughout FCPS over 18,000 computers are now connected to the Internet. The numbers of computers with access to both local and Internet-based networking has increased significantly in the past two fiscal years, and is proposed to increase significantly again in the FY 1999 Technology Plan.

With the accelerating integration of computers into society, the rise in popularity of the Internet and World Wide Web, and the rapid advancements in technology, it is increasingly important that educators effectively integrate technology into mainstream curricula. Network capabilities are now critical for all FCPS sites. In order to provide those capabilities, FCPS has developed an integrated network services delivery model that encompasses three levels of networking service to schools, centers, and departments.

Level 1 services are the basic services for a site that is connected to the WAN (Wide-Area Network), the network outside of the individual school. Services include access to the Internet, e-mail, electronic bulletin boards, and FCPS and County central applications (student information, finance, human resources, payroll, transportation, etc.). This level provides communication capability with the parent community via e-mail as well as access to Internet resources.
Level 2 services add multi-purpose servers that provide a LAN (Local-Area Network), and shared access to files, printers, and databases.
Level 3 services use the servers provided in Level 2 as a foundation for advanced services such as access to shared CD-ROMs and other multimedia resources.

All Fairfax County schools are fully connected to the Internet at Level 1 or will be by the end of FY 1998. Funds are included in the FY 1999 Technology Plan to make significant progress toward upgrading all sites to Level 2 by the end of FY 1999. The servers being installed in each school to support the SASI student information system will also be used for local networks. The servers already in place in middle and high schools will be able to support local networks when SASI is upgraded as part of its extension to elementary schools.

The tremendous Internet and local-area network capability that FCPS is developing has applications other than e-mail and on-line research. "Distance learning" classes can be offered, making it possible for students in under-enrolled classes at different schools to share a teacher. Staff development courses can be offered over the Internet, allowing staff to save on transportation time and to complete the course work at a time and pace more convenient to their schedules. Homebound students could receive assignments and lessons via the Internet, saving time and transportation expenses.

Parents could take refresher courses in high school level courses to help their students. Members of the community could participate in distance learning classes offered by FCPS, allowing FCPS to extend its services to the community at large and improving support from the community. The FCCPTA recommends that FCPS explore future possible uses of the Internet to offer courses through distance learning. We believe there are many possible applications of distance learning that would allow FCPS to improve the efficiency of its operations.

Internet connectivity can also be used to improve home-school communications. In past reports the FCCPTA has urged establishment of an e-mail system that would allow parents and teachers to communicate via e-mail. This capability now appears to exist in many of our schools, but is not being widely used to enhance communications between teachers, parents, and students. Some school technology coordinators have expressed concern about parent-teacher e-mail, feeling that if it is used to discuss homework assignments it would reduce the student's responsibility for keeping track of assignments. The FCCPTA believes that this is a small risk compared to the tremendous benefits that could occur if e-mail were available to enable teachers and parents to consult on an individual student's academic progress. The FCCPTA strongly supports the use of e-mail to enhance home-school communications, and recommends that schools begin to routinely collect e-mail addresses as they now routinely collect telephone numbers.

There is one additional issue, addressed only peripherally in the FY 1999 Technology Plan, that should be further analyzed before next year's Technology Plan is reviewed. Internet content filtering is a topic that should have been resolved well before our schools were connected to the Internet. However, we now have well-connected schools, and no policy.

The School Board has funded, for FY 1999, a small project for one pyramid that will provide some Internet content filtering. The School Board is also in the midst of a discussion on their policy on filtering. The FCCPTA, acknowledging that this complex topic is at its core a freedom of expression issue, recommends further study by a group of parents representing the FCCPTA Budget, Technology and Education Committees.

CONTENT

Without hardware and Internet connections, there could be no content. With content we begin to get at the heart of the issue of improving educational performance through technology. There are five criteria in the Content area for being a "Target Tech" school. They are the availability of:

Drill and practice applications
Applications for creation
Simulation software
Research resources
Networked communications

FCPS uses many different types of computer applications in these areas, ranging from the Success Maker integrated learning system to Interactive Physics to the new GeoSystems programs for high school students and that old stand-by, Claris Works.

In addition, all schools have on-line research capabilities. One excellent approach FCPS has taken to improve access to on-line research capabilities is the service purchased from ProQuest. This on-line periodical library is available to many FCPS middle and high school students and their families, either from their home computer or from a school computer. This tremendous research resource reduces the "seam" between home and school learning. In the area of networked communication systems, all schools now have them, but it is unclear if all students have access to the systems.

We have not been able to conduct a thorough review of the range of computer software applications currently used in FCPS. This subject merits additional study over the next year, and we suggest it be undertaken jointly by the Education and Technology Chairs of the FCCPTA.

Without measurements of the benefits associated with the use of technology in these five content areas, including but not limited to improvements in student achievement, we have no way of determining if our investments in technology are effective. The STaR Report states "there is a pressing need to develop new measurement tools capable of more fully describing the effect of technology on learning." The STaR Report authors are collecting data for future reports to provide some of the information needed. FCPS is also working to develop measurement tools. We recommend that reports on progress toward developing measurement tools, and on the results of the measurements, be included in future Technology Plans. Although we recognize that measurement of the benefits of technology, isolated from the benefits of other FCPS educational programs, is difficult without setting up a proper experimental setting with control groups, nevertheless we believe we must try to do this.

We are also aware that intense professional dispute is occurring over the use of the CCC - Success Maker software. At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental difference in the conception of the role of the teacher and whether the teacher can be replaced--at least partially--by technology. To quote Marianne O'Brien, FCPS instructional technology coordinator, "This issue [that of substituting machines for people] was reflected last spring in the Fairfax County (Va.) Public Schools...The district faced the difficult question of whether to expand access to a software program that helps elementary school students with language arts, math, and other basic skills - help that a teacher might have provided. We just aren't sure it makes enough difference to justify the cost. There are other things we'd rather do with the money - like give more students access to technology and do more creative things with it."

The opposing view point is represented by many Area I principals. One in particular points out that by setting up a computer lab with 15 computers, staffed by an instructional assistant, over 300 children can receive individualized instruction for 15 minutes per day, every day of the week. This represents 75 hours per day of individualized instruction. The same computer program tracks student progress, designs individualized homework or classroom drill assignments, and prepares reports for the classroom teacher in each child's strengths and weaknesses. This is a use of a computer technology which helps teachers more efficiently deliver individualized services to children.

The FCCPTA believes this topic--the use of integrated learning systems software--needs careful investigation by an independent group of parents, teachers, and administrators before the additional funds for computer-assisted instruction included in the FY 1999 Advertised Budget are expended. We must not foreclose any effective options for improving services to our children, even if these options require fundamental changes in our definition of the role of the teacher. The use of information technology has radically changed many of the industries in which it is used; we must be prepared for the possibility that our schools as well may be fundamentally altered.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Good hardware, good connections, and good content are all to no avail if your teachers don't know how to use them effectively in the classroom. Education occurs in the classroom; the professional development of the teacher must be a priority. Nor should the role of the principal as an advocate for and leader in technology integration be under-estimated.

The STaR Report defines four levels of technology skill for teachers. These have been shown previously in the STaR Chart and are offered as guidelines, not requirements. Not all staff will need 71 hours of training or more in order to reach the invention level of skill; some who have an affinity for computers will be able to learn all the necessary skills through self-teaching and experimentation. However, for many people, extensive staff development is necessary to become accomplished users of computers in their own right, and then additional assistance and time is needed to integrate those skills into daily classroom activities.

In the Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education, the Panel states:

What teachers actually need is in-depth, sustained assistance as they work to integrate computer use into the curriculum and confront the tension between traditional methods of instruction and new pedagogic methods that make extensive use of technology. Such assistance should include not only purely technical support, but pedagogic support as well, ideally including observation within the classrooms of successful technology-using teachers, periodic consultation with more experienced mentors, and ongoing communication with other teachers grappling with similar challenges.

Where do FCPS staff fall on the STaR indicators? There is no way to know. At present FCPS has no method for assessing technology skills. However, in three years all FCPS teachers must be competent in the eight Virginia Standards of Technology in order to be recertified (see text box at right). FCPS is now developing the criteria to be used for this certification. Tentative plans are to require the teacher to provide a portfolio which demonstrates both the skills and their application in the classroom. The FCCPTA believes that input from our technologically savvy kids would also be a valuable component of technology skills assessments for teachers.

By the few measures we have available we appear to be seriously under-investing in staff development for technology. We do not have an assessment system to determine what teacher competencies in technology are; technology-related staff development is significantly less than benchmark recommendations. There are more and more Academy course offerings that pertain to technology, both in terms of acquisition of basic skills and in curriculum integration areas. Many of the Technology Plan approved projects include staff development components, but with the exception of the Model Technology Program training, which is said to be excellent, they are often directed at the specific applications. However, the over 40 courses that were offered last fall to train elementary school staff on the new math programs make no reference in the course description to integration of the computer in teaching these courses. What a missed opportunity to reach elementary school teachers teaching a subject that is well-suited for computer applications!

If the full benefit of technology is to be realized, FCPS needs to make a more thorough assessment of its staff development needs in the area of technology. To use technology in an interdisciplinary, cross-curricular fashion to foster a learner-centered rather than teacher-centered environment will require significant changes in teaching style and methods. None of the courses in the FCPS Academy listings approach technology integration in this fashion.

The first step in improving our technology-related staff development offerings is to make a better determination of staff development needs. All staff could take an on-line technology competency assessment. When all staff have completed the assessment, the program could automatically compile a school-wide profile of the technology competencies of the staff. This profile would provide a much better basis for staff development planning, and would be of use to school staff in the development of their own school plans as well. The FCCPTA strongly encourages FCPS to incorporate assessments of staff development needs into the school technology profile. It need not be done in the fashion suggested here, but it does need to be done.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Although technical support is included within the category of professional development in the STaR Chart, we feel it is of sufficient importance to discuss separately. It is also a continuing shortfall of the FCPS technology program, although it is recognized as such and much effort and money has been spent in the past year to improve technical support to schools and offices within the school system.

Within the past three years 46 new pyramid-based positions have been added to support school technology use. The pyramid technology trainers assist in training functions. In addition, 23 new positions were added in FY 1998 to provide technical support. As mentioned before, most schools have designated a staff person as technology coordinator, but the manner in which this position is funded and the definition of responsibilities vary greatly from school to school. Many schools now have a local area network, access to the wide area network, and hundreds of computers, yet the School Board has yet to fund full-time school-based positions for our schools. The FCCPTA reiterates its recommendation from its FY 1999 proposed budget analysis that each school with a critical number of computers be allocated an additional staffing position. The FCCPTA believes this needs to be a professional level position, either on the US or the teacher salary scale. The Fairfax schools that are using technology effectively are doing so largely because they have been willing to make the staffing sacrifices to have at least one full-time technology support person.

THE TECHNOLOGY PLAN: RECOMMENDATIONS ON FORMAT AND CONTENT

The format and descriptive material in the FY 1999 Technology Plan are greatly improved over those of the FY 1998 Integrated Technology Plan. The Strategic Technology Planning Council (STPC) is to be commended for its work in this area, and for its demonstration of how a well-structured team representing the technical, general education, and special education departments of FCPS central staff can together effectively plan and coordinate. The actor missing in this process is the parent. The FCCPTA is sensitive to the belief of STPC members that a major element in their effectiveness has been their relatively small size. Nevertheless, the FCCPTA recommends that a mechanism for obtaining parent input on technology issues be developed. The FCCPTA is interested in working with the STPC to devise such a mechanism.

The major improvement in the FY 1999 plan was the use of school profiles to determine hardware and connectivity needs. While this still results in counting metal boxes, rather than measuring effectiveness of use, it nevertheless provides both individual snapshots and system-wide portraits of the deployment of technology. The next step in the development of school technology profiles is to incorporate assessments of content and staff development.

Some of this may already be addressed at the school level in school plans; many schools have technology plans that are part of their school plans. However, DIT does not at present use the schools' own planning processes or documents to supplement its own plans. Because both schools and departments are working toward the priorities set by the School Board, these plans should be part of a continuum of planning. The DIT plans should be congruent with the school plans, and the school plans with DIT's overall plans. The Department of Instructional Support and the Department of Student Services and Special Education should also have important roles to play in this process as the foremost sources of expertise on integration of technology in the curriculum.

There is also an equity issue; however, determining the minimum number of computers necessary for each school is only part of the resolution of this issue. We cannot simply count computers, as the profiles are still doing--there must also be some measure of effective use. An equitable distribution of technology resources should be the goal, and technology resources include humans and hardware. Future allocations of funds should consider both the human and hardware components of equity, and achievement of equity should be the most important criteria for allocating resources.

The definition of benefits and measurement of benefits specific to projects is also still weak, but this is a very complex area. We know that FCPS staff are working on this area, and will watch with interest as the process evolves. Many educational benefits are "external," that is, they are not capturable by the system. The salary a student receives in an after-school or part-time job may be higher because of technology skills; that is a worthwhile product of our investment in technology, but it is not one the school system can easily measure. FCCPTA hopes that the measurements that are obtained will be reported periodically as meaningful data become available, and that a year-end progress report on both the indicators of achievement and their measurement be made.

Format Recommendations

Implementing the following recommendations would make the Technology Plan a more comprehensive, "one-stop" source of information on technology activities in FCPS. We believe that, given the newness of the emphasis on technology, and the level of funding for technology, this one-stop approach is necessary. In time, as technology funding becomes part of an ongoing process integrated into all aspects of the school system, this may cease to be necessary.

The Technology Plan should include a budget description of all technology-related funding, as described earlier in this paper and specifically including capital program funding.
Project Descriptions and the Project Status Reports should include the same information and be in the same format. They should include the following (in addition to their current content of description, indicators of achievement, and expected benefits and result):

a. Project director information;

b. Expenditures by fiscal year for the life of the project;

c. A breakdown of expenditures by major sub-object code, particularly to include hardware, software, staff development, position(s) and benefits, and maintenance costs for the proposed fiscal year; and

d. A project schedule for the proposed current fiscal year.

All costs for all unfunded items should be included.
Finally, the release of the Technology Plan should precede the release of the proposed budget so both analyses can be consistent. There were not enough details in the proposed budget document this year to properly comment on the technology expenditures, and the Technology Plan was not released until relatively late in the budget cycle. The Technology Plan should be released at least one month before the budget is released, so it can be read and understood prior to the budget hearings.

CONCLUSIONS

The most important points of this report can be described in three words: equity, staff development, and benefits. Our analysis has shown that equity continues to be a significant problem in the allocation of technology resources--which we define to include not only hardware but technologically capable humans--both among schools and across school levels. Our analysis has also shown that we are seriously under-investing in technology-related staff development. If we are to fully reap the benefits of our already substantial investments in technology, we have to increase our investment in the human side of technology. And finally, we must begin the difficult process of defining the benefits we expect and measuring the benefits we actually reap from our investment in technology.

Top of Page

Last Updated 01/27/2005 20:22:29