Master Plan for Instructional Technology - SFUSD

Education Technology Plan Review System 

Contact Information 

County & District Code : 3810389 & 3868478 

School Code : N.A. 

LEA Name: 

San Francisco County Office of Education 

San Francisco Unified School District 

Salutation:* Ms. 

First Name:* Brianne 

Last Name:* Ford Meyer 

Job Title:* Chief Information Officer 

Address:* 601 McAllister Street 

City:* San Francisco 

Zip Code:* 94102-3111 

Telephone:* 415-241-6169 

Fax: 415-202-0758 

E-Mail:* FordB@.sfusd.edu 

Please provide backup contact information. 

1st Backup Name: Jan Gustafson 

1st Backup E-Mail: GustafsonJ@sfusd.edu 

2nd Backup Name: Dr. John Rubio 

2nd Backup E-Mail: rubioj@sfusd.eduu


and 


Master Plan for Instructional Technology 

Access and Equity Student Achievement Accountability. 

Board of Education 

Ms. Kim-Shree Maufas, President 

Ms. Jane Kim, Vice-President 

Ms. Sandra Fewer 

Ms. Hydra Mendoza 

Ms. Rachel Norton 

Ms. Jill Wynns 

Mr. Norman Yee 

2009-2012 

Superintendent 

Mr. Carlos Garcia

San Francisco Unified School District San Francisco County Office of Education 

1April 2009 



Master Plan for Instructional Technology 

April 2009 

Table of Contents 

Strands 1 & 2 – Plan Duration and Stakeholders 3 

Introduction 3 

Purpose of the Master Instructional Technology Plan 3 

Organization 4 

Duration of the Plan 5 

Planning Process 5 

Stakeholders 7 

Strand 3 – Curriculum 10 

Student and Teacher Access to Technology 10 

Current Use of Technology 14 

District’s Curricular Goals Supported by the Technology Plan 23 

Summary of Curriculum Needs 28 

Curriculum Goals, Benchmarks, Strategies and Timeline 32 

• Technology to Improve Teaching and Learning 32 

• Technological and Information Literacy Skills 34 

• Appropriate and Ethical Use of Information Technology 34 

• Internet Safety (Online Privacy, and Cyber-Safety 34 

• Appropriate Access by All Students and Teachers 36 

• Student Record Keeping and Assessment 37 

• Utilization of Technology to Improve Two-Way Communication between Home 

and School 

38 

Monitoring and Evaluation 40 

Strand 4 – Professional Development 42 

Current Technology Proficiency and Integration Skills and Professional Development Needs 42 

Conclusion: Strategic Plan and Professional Development Needs 47 

Goals, Benchmarks, Strategies and Timelines 52 

• Staff Technology Proficiency 52 

• Aligning Technology with the 21 st Century Curriculum Initiative 53 

• Developing Literacy Skills, Ethical and Safe Use of Technology 55 

• Use of Data to Improve Instruction 56 

• Use of Technology to Improve Two-Way Home-School Communications 57 


Strand 5 – Infrastructure, Hardware, Software and Technical Support 59 

Existing Hardware, Internet Access, Electronic Resources and Technical Support 59 

Hardware, Internet Access, Electronic Resources and Technical Support Needed to Support 

Curriculum and Professional Development 

62 

Benchmarks and Timeline 66 

Page


• Hardware Benchmarks 66 

• Infrastructure Benchmarks 67 

• Learning Resources Benchmarks 68 

• Technical Support Benchmarks 69 


Strand 6 – Funding and Budget 71 

Introduction 71 

Established and Potential Funding Sources and Cost Savings 72 

Estimated Implementation Costs 74 

Annual Budget Projections 76 

• 2009-2010 76 

• 2010-2011 79 

• 2011-2012 82 

Computer Replacement and Obsolescence Policies 85 

Monitoring Process for Funding and Budget 86 

Stand 7 – Monitoring and Evaluation 87 

Process for Evaluating of Technology Plan’s Overall Progress and Impact on Teaching and 

Learning 

87 

Process for Evaluating Progress on Curriculum Goals 88 

Schedule for Evaluating the Effect of Plan Implementation 94 

Process and Frequency of Communicating Results to Stakeholders 95 

Strand 8 – Collaborative Strategies for Adult Literacy 97 

Strand 9 – Effective Researched-Based Methods, Strategies and Criteria 98 

Relevant Research to Support Curriculum and Professional Development 98 

Technology to Extend Distance Learning Opportunities 101 

Appendices 

A. Summary: California Technology Survey (Spring 2008) 102 

B-1. Wide Area Network Ring Architecture 108 

B –2 Wide Area Network Timeline 109 

C. California Department of Education Appendix C – EETT Technology Plan Rubric 110 

2April 2009


STRANDS 1 & 2 – PLAN DURATION & STAKEHOLDERS 

INTRODUCTION 

The San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco County Office of Education are 

submitting the Master Plan for Instructional Technology 2009-2012 that addresses the needs of the 

approximately 56,000 students enrolled in the 104 District and eight County Office of Education 

schools. 

San Francisco Unified School District: Founded in 1851, San Francisco Unified School District 

educates approximately 55,000 of San Francisco's pre-school, elementary, middle and high school 

students at 34 preschools, 102 K-12 schools and nine charter schools. 

San Francisco County Office of Education: San Francisco is unique in that it is both the City and 

County of San Francisco. The established governing body is responsible for administering both the 

District and the County Office of Education (“County”). The County provides services to 689 students 

with special needs and at-risk students most of whom are enrolled in programs of less than twenty 

students that are designed to address their specific needs. The County operates four school 

programs that are located at eight county/court schools: Special Education, Juvenile Court, 

Alternative Opportunity and County Community School. 

The District’s reform initiatives and this Master Plan for Instructional Technology address all County 

schools and programs. 

Purpose of the Master Plan: San Francisco Unified School District Master Plan for Instructional 

Technology (“Technology Plan”) provides a district-wide vision for how technology will be embedded 

into the Strategic Plan and help transform all classrooms into 21 st Century learning environments. 

Simply put, the Master Plan is a strategic document that provides a vision for instructional technology 

in the schools and a roadmap for moving towards that vision over the next three years. The Master 

Plan: 

• Establishes the goals for the use of technology to improve access and equity, student 

achievement and accountability. 

• Describes what resources are currently available, 

• Identifies the strategic approaches to be taken to achieve the goals, 

• Sets specific and measurable objectives, 

• Describes a process to monitor progress and 

• Projects a five-year budget to guide the allocation of funds from the parcel tax and other 

district and site funds dedicated to technology. 

N.B.: The plan is not an operational or implementation plan. Based on this Master Plan, the district 

will prepare an annual implementation plan and budget based on current needs and available 

resources. While the plan proposes an annual timeline for implementation, the references to “years” 

should be interpreted as “phases.” Strategies outlined for year one, for example, should occur before 

those identified for years two and three. While the parcel tax is providing a critical funding 

baseline for technology and is enabling an unprecedented level of district-wide planning, the 

availability of 

3April 2009


additional funding each year will be a major determinate in how much progress the district 

will be able to make annually. 

In addition to creating a common vision to guide the use of resources, the Master Plan for 

Instructional Technology fulfills federal and state requirements. A state approved three year 

Master Plan is a prerequisite for eligibility for a range of federal and state technology funding, 

such as e-rate, California Telecommunications Fund, EETT, and the Education Technology K- 

12 Voucher Program.   

  

This Master Plan represents a significant revision of and departure from the Technology Master Plan 

for 2006-2009 adopted in 2006. The Master Plan 2009-2012 is driven by the district’s new five year 

Strategic Plan: “Beyond the Talk; Taking Action to Educate Every Child” (“Strategic Plan”). The 

completion of a robust fiber wide area network connecting all District schools in 2010 opens up 

opportunities not available in 2006. The 2009-2012 Master Plan also reflects the availability of a 

technology funding source dedicated to technology through the parcel tax that was passed in June 

2008 (though it will be insufficient at its current level of 3.75 million per year). 

Organization: While driven by the Strategic Plan, the Master Plan is aligned with the California 

Departments of Education “Education Technology Planning Guide” and the “EETT Technology Plan 

Rubric” and fulfills the requirements of “No Child Left Behind.” (See Appendix C). The Plan is divided 

into the nine sections required by the EETT Rubric: 

Strand 1 and Strand 2 – Plan Duration and Stakeholders includes the introduction, defines the 

duration of the plan and identifies the stakeholders who have input into the Technology Master 

Plan. 

Strand 3 - Curriculum identifies student and teacher access to technology and how technology 

is currently used. The 21 st Century Curriculum Initiative in the Strategic Plan is outlined as the 

context for the Technology Plan’s curricular goals and objectives. It includes a summary of a 

curriculum needs assessment based on research, stakeholder input and the Strategic Plan’s 

Initiatives that summarizes the issues addressed in each later strand of the plan. The curricular 

goals serve as the primary drivers for the rest of the plan and describe how technology will be 

used to further the teaching and learning goals of the Strategic Plan. 

Strand 4 - Professional Development summarizes the teachers’ current level of technology 

proficiency and how technology is used for instruction. A summary of the Equity-Centered 

Professional Learning Initiative in the Strategic Plan provides the context for the professional 

development goals and objectives for the next three years and describes how technology will be 

used to support the Equity-Centered Professional Learning Initiative. 

Strand 5 - Infrastructure, Hardware, Software and Technical Support describes the status of 

the district’s network infrastructure, hardware, software and technical support and what must be 

developed over the next three years to support the curriculum and professional development 

goals and to further the 21 st Century Curriculum, Equity-Centered Professional Learning and the 

Performance Management Initiatives in the Strategic Plan. 

Strand 6 – Budget and Funding identifies current and future potential funding sources for 

technology and projects a budget for each of the three years of the plan. This section also 

4April 2009


describes the strategies to reduce the total costs of ownership for technology as well as policies 

for computer replacement and obsolete and donated computers. 

Strand 7 - Monitoring and Evaluation describes how the plan will be monitored and how 

impact of the plan on student achievement will be evaluated through the Performance 

Management Initiative in the Strategic Plan. 

Strand 8 – Collaborative Strategies for Adult Literacy provides an overview of adult literacy 

services provided by SFUSD parent support programs as well as those available through 

collaborations with the City College of San Francisco. 

Strand 9 – Effective Researched-Based Methods, Strategies and Criteria summarizes the 

research that informed both the Strategic Plan and the Technology Plan. 

Appendices: In addition to the documents attached to provide supplemental information to the 

Technology Plan, the California Department of Education (CDE) requires Appendix C – The 

EETT Educational Technology Plan Rubric to demonstrate that the plan fulfills federal 

requirements. 

Plan Duration: The Master Plan is a three-year strategic plan for the period July 1, 2009 through 

June 30, 2012. 

Planning Process – The Strategic Plan: Years of community input and a wide range of data 

were analyzed to create the Strategic Plan. A series of community conversations with small 

groups were conducted that engaged over one thousand people to identify not just the 

challenges in education but to get at the root causes of the deep disparities in student 

achievement in SFUSD. 

“The San Francisco Unified School District sees the achievement gap as the greatest 

social justice/civil rights issue facing our country today; there cannot be justice for all 

without closing this gap.” (Carlos Garcia, Superintendent) 

The Strategic Plan grew out of this research and focuses all resources on achievement for all 

students. Three goals are central to the implementation of these goals: 

Goal 1: Access and Equity: Make social justice a reality 

5April 2009 

Objectives: Diminish the historic power of demographics 

Center professional development of equity 

Create an environment for students to flourish 

Provide the infrastructure for successful learning 

Initiative: Equity Centered Professional Learning Initiative 

Goal 2: Student Achievement: Engage high achieving and joyful learners 

Objectives: Ensure authentic learning for every child 

Prepare the citizens of tomorrow 

Create learning beyond the classroom 

Initiative: 21 st Century Curriculum Initiative


6April 2009 

Goal 3: Accountability: Keep our promises to students and families. 

Objectives: Provide direction and strategic leadership 

Create the culture of service and support 

Initiative: Performance Management Initiative 

The Master Plan for Technology is driven by the Strategic Plan and informed by the same extensive 

research and best practices that gave shape to the Strategic Plan and the three initiatives established 

to realize the objectives of the plan. 

Planning Process – Master Plan for Technology: The district recruited fifteen site and district 

leaders to serve on the Technology Planning Committee that oversaw the planning process and the 

preparation of the Master Plan. They were also responsible for coordinating input from the Board of 

Education members, District leadership, the district’s Technology Advisory Group (ITAG), teachers, 

principals, students and parents. 

Stakeholders Input: 

Interviews, 

Team Meetings, 

Interview, 

Focus Groups, 

Community Meetings 

Surveys 

Review of Draft Plan 

• District Leadership 

• Principals 

• Teachers 

• Students 

• Parents 

Technology Master Plan Planning Process 2009 

Planning 

Committee 

Coordinate 

Draft Plan 

Research: 

Strategic Plan 

Best Practices 

CA Tech Survey 

EdTechProfile 

Cabinet 

Set vision 

Recommend 

to Board 

Board of 

Education 

Set vision 

Approve 

Plan 

State 

approval 

Needs Assessment: The Committee’s needs assessment included the following research and 

input from stakeholders: 

• Findings from the Strategic Plan planning process 

• The San Francisco Unified School District Strategic Plan: Beyond the Talk (2008) 

• The 21 st Century Integrated Curriculum Design Team Convening document, by the 

Department of Academics and Professional Development (“APD”)(2008) 

• The Report on the Proceedings of the Professional Development Design Convening by the 

San Francisco Education Fund and the Department of Academics and Professional 

Development (2009) 

• The San Francisco Unified School District LEA Program Improvement Plan (2009) 

• Findings from the District computer inventory (spring 2009) 

• Interviews with Board of Education members, Superintendent, and district and site 

leadership. 

• Community Planning Meetings held in three areas of the city attended by teachers, parents 

and community members. 

• Focus groups involving teachers, principals, and students.


• Meetings with stakeholder groups such as the Principals, Instructional Technology Advisory 

Group, Teachers, Student Advisory Council, District English Learners Advisory Council. 

• Research of the literature on best practices 

• Conferences and presentations on emerging instructional technology and best practices, 

including Computer Using Educators (CUE) Conferences, the Re-Boot Conference: 21st 

Century Tools sponsored by CTAP and the Alameda County Office of Education, Yahoo 

conference on Cybersafety, Cisco Global Strategic Data Center Futures presentations and 

demonstrations, 21 st Century tools presentations to the District Technology Coordinators 

Groups sponsored by CTAP and the San Mateo County Office of Education, and numerous 

vendor presentations on instructional technology tools, Voice over IP applications, web tools 

and assessment and data systems. 

Review Process: The Senior Executive Director of the 21 st Century Learning and Accountability. 

Academics and Professional Development, the Chief Information Officer (CIO), Information 

Technology Department, and the newly appointed Supervisor of Instructional Technology oversaw 

the planning process and the preparation of the Technology Plan. 

Stakeholders Involvement: 

Technology Planning Committee: The Planning Committee represented their respective 

organizations and programs and recommended the goals, objectives, strategic actions based on 

the synthesized information from the research and stakeholders’ input. A special note of thanks 

to the following people who gave so much time and creative thought to the plan: 

• APD 

• Jeanne D’Arcy, Supervisor, Math & Science 

• Dr. John Rubio, Supervisor, Instructional Technology 

• Patricia Theel, Supervisor, Career Technical 

Education 

• Information Technology Department: 

• Brianne Ford Meyer, Chief Information Officer 

• Sean Rozell, Director, Infrastructure 

SOIS 

• Baje Thiara, CAHSEE Coordinator 

• Wendy Tukloff, Asst. Superintendent – K-8 

Interviews with District Leadership 

Board of Education 

• Ms. Kim-Shree Maufas, President 

• Ms. Jane Kim, Vice-President 

• Ms. Sandra Fewer 

• Ms. Hydra Mendoza 

• Ms. Rachel Norton 

• Ms. Jill Wynns 

• Mr. Norman Yee 

Superintendent’s Office 

• Carlos Garcia, Superintendent 

• Hoover Liddel, Special Asst., School Reform 

• Dee Dee Desmond, Executive Director, Reform 

and Accountability 

UESF 

• Dennis Kelly 

• Eric Hall 

7April 2009 

Schools 

• Matt Livingston, AP, International Studies High 

School 

• Phyllis Matsumo, Principal, Longfellow Elementary 

School 

• Phan Phung, Principal, Denman Middle School 

• Bill Sanderson, Principal, International Studies High 

School 

• Erin Wheeler, Teacher, Bessie Carmichael 

Elementary School 

Pearson Foundation 

• David Cole, Education Director 

Instruction, Innovation & Social Justice 

• Tony Smith, Deputy Superintendent 

• Kevin Truitt, Sr.Exec.Director, Leadership & Equity 

Initiative 

Academics and Professional Development 

• Francisca Sanchez, Assoc. Superintendent, 

• Jan Gustafson, Sr. Executive Director, 21 st Century 

Learning and Accountability 

• Karling Aguilera-Fort, Asst. Superintendent, 

Learning Support and Policy 

• Dongshill Kim, Sr. Executive Director, Professional 

Learning and Equity 

• School Operations and Instructional Support 

• Margaret Chiu, Asst. Superintendent – High 

Schools 

• Davide Celoria, Asst. Superintendent K-8


• Joan Hepperly, Asst. Superintendent – Middle 

Schools 

• Richard Maggi, Director, Secondary Operations 

• Jeannie Pon, Assoc. Superintendent - Elementary 

• Baje Thiara, CAHSEE Coordinator 

• Wendy Tukloff, Asst. Superintendent – K-8 

School Family Partnership 

• Deena Zacharin, Director 

Policy and Operations 

• Myong Leigh, Deputy Supt 

Research, Planning and Accountability 

• Ritu Khanna, Executive Director 

Instructional Technology Advisory Groups (ITAG) represented their respective organizations 

and programs and met over a four month period to review research findings and make 

recommendation to the Planning Committee. ITAG will be responsible for monitoring the 

implementation of the Technology Plan. Our appreciation goes to: 

• Laureen Bergeron, Trainer, Software, ITD 

• Jeanne D’Arcy, Supervisor, Math & Science, 

APD 

• Michelle Dawson, Contract Manager, ITD 

• Deborah Farkas, Content Specialist, Science, 

APD 

• Kathleen Ferenz, Technology Specialist, CTAP 4 

• Joan Hepperly, Asst. Supt. Middle Schools, SOIS 

Stakeholder Meetings 

• Academy of Information Technology Teachers 

• Community meetings at Marina Middle School, Ulloa 

Elementary School and Everett Middle School 

• District English Language Advisory Committee 

• Elementary, Middle and High School Principals 

Surveys 

Additional information was gathered through the following survey tools: 

• Delicia Kamins, Sr. Trainer, ITD 

• Brianne Ford Meyer, Chief Information Officer 

• Michelle Powers, Library Media Specialist, APD 

• Sean Rozell, Director, Infrastructure 

• Dr. John Rubio, Supervisor, Instructional 

Technology 

• Patricia Theel, Supervisor, Career Technical 

Education 

• Erin Wheeler, Teacher, Bessie Carmichael 

Elementary School 

• Middle School Teacher Leaders Initiative – Science 

Teachers 

• Parent, Teachers, Students Association 

• San Francisco School Alliance 

• Student Advisory Council 

• EdTechProfile, a technology proficiency and use survey developed by the CDE and 

completed by approximately 2,000 San Francisco teachers. 

• The California Technology Survey (2008)developed by the CDE that provided data 

on the number and location of computers, network connectivity, technology use and 

professional development needs and technical support levels. 

• Surveys distributed to approximately 170 participants at principals’, teachers’ and 

students’ meetings 

• A short on-line survey for parents and community members 

The district will administer a survey of students this fall to identify home access to computers, 

student technology proficiency and use. 

May 2009 8


Kathleen Schuler, Consultant, Educational Technology, staffed the Planning Committee and 

drafted the various planning and support documents. Kathleen Ferenz, Technology Specialist, 

California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP 4), participated in various planning meetings, 

reviewed document drafts and provided expertise in best practices and trends in educational 

technology. 

May 2009 9


STRAND 3 – CURRICULUM 

A. STUDENT AND TEACHER ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY 

Student/Teacher Access to Computers: The district has deployed 11,731 instructional 

computers, of which 10,268 or 88% are connected to the Internet. Of these the County 1 has 

1,244 computers for 689 students, and all but those at the Youth Guidance Center are 

connected to the Internet. The overall student to computer ratio is 4.2 to 1 but rises to 5.5 to 1 

for computers with Internet connections. However, 6,740 of these computers are over 4 years 

of age, and the student to computer ratio increases to 8.3 to 1 for computers that are less than 

five years of age. The largest concentration of old computers is at the middle schools although 

elementary schools have the lowest concentration of computers overall. While all students have 

access to these instructional computers, including Special Education and English Language 

Learner students, there are significant differences in the level of access among school levels 

and between schools. 

Lowest Highest 

Ratio Ratio 

• Elementary Schools: 2.2 to1 19 to 1 

• Middle Schools: 2.1 to1 12.6 to 1 

• High schools: 1.5 to1 11.1 to 1 

Access to Other Technologies: Starting in 2007-08 the district began installing interactive 

whiteboards for Academy and other classroom teachers using a combination of Career Technical 

1 These data do not reflect all the assistive technologies provided for the students with both mild and severe special needs. 

May 2009 10


Education (CTE), K-12 Voucher and site funds. There are approximately 40 interactive whiteboards 

in five middle schools and nine high schools at this time, and additional boards in 6 elementary 

schools. 

The district has distributed probe ware over the last three years for middle and high school science 

instruction. In addition some classrooms are equipped with LCD projectors or ELMO document 

projectors. The goal is to have at least one presentation unit in each classroom, library/media center 

and lab. 

The district is now conducting an on-site inventory of technology in the schools, which will provide 

more accurate statistics on technology used for instruction than the data available from the selfreporting 

California Technology Survey. That survey will be completed in 2009-10. 

Location of Computers: 34% of the instructional computers are located in computer labs while 51% 

are in classrooms or other instructional areas. The remaining 8% are located in library/media centers 

and 7% of the laptops are in mobile carts. 46% of the computers at the County schools are located 

in classrooms while only 20% are in lab or library settings. Through the Microsoft K-12 Voucher 

Settlement Fund, the district installed one new lab in each middle and high school over the last two 

years. Sixty-five percent of computers are in classrooms in the elementary schools while 43% of 

secondary computers are located in classrooms. 

As part of the Pre-K-12 Voucher program the district has deployed new computer labs in all qualifying 

secondary schools in the district. The labs consist of one teacher laptop plus 20 laptops in a mobile 

cart or 30 computers in a traditional lab setting. The first cohort of seventeen schools was completed 

by January 2008 with the second cohort of sixteen completed mid-September 2008. The third cohort 

of three schools will be equipped spring 2009. 2 

Although the majority of the computers are located in classrooms, teachers reported that 41% of the 

students completed assignments in the computer labs and 21% in the libraries, compared to 35% in 

the classroom (EdTechProfile 2009). Based on these findings and classroom observations, 

classroom computers, especially those in the secondary schools, appear to be under-utilized. The 

technology plan calls for professional development in the use of classroom computers, especially at 

the secondary level that have relatively inflexible class periods. 

2 The chart does not include the three schools that had not received their equipment at the time of this writing. 

May 2009 11


Instructional Media: Chart 3 identifies licenses for software and other electronic resources that have 

been acquired by the district for teacher and student use, 

Chart 3: Software and On-Line Resources Licensed by the District 

Accessible by PC and Mac Computers: 

Microsoft Office 

Word 

Excel 

Access 

PowerPoint 

Microsoft SharePoint Administrators/teachers 

E-mail Staff 

School Loop 20 pilots schools spring 2009 

All schools Fall 2009 

Textbook Publishers’ Electronic Resources 

Discover Streaming Video 

TeachingBooks.net Teachers 

Wilson’s Web Librarians 

Inspiration Middle/High Schools 

Newsbank Middle/High Schools 

Brain POP Licensed on per site basis 

netTrekker High Schools 

Ferguson’s Career High Schools 

AP Images High Schools 

Achieve 3000 Licensed on per site basis 

Education Programs for Gifted Youth (EPGY) Licensed on per site basis 

Renzulli Learning System Licensed on per site basis 

On PC Computers Only 

Adobe Digital School Collection 

Premier Elements 4 

Photo Shop Elements 6 

Middle/High Schools 

Acrobate 8 Professional 

Contribute CS3 web tool 

On MAC Computers Only 

iLife Suite Middle/High Schools 

iPhoto 

iMovie 

Garage Band 

iWeb content management tool 

In addition to the district licensed resources in chart 3, school sites and various departments have 

also acquired a wide range of electronic resources. Among the resources some schools are using in 

various enrichment and intervention programs and to help students pass Algebra and the CAHSEE 

exam: 

• Graphics software (ex. KidPix, PhotoShop Elements) 

• Publishing software (ex. PageMaker) 

• Web design tools, grading and classroom management software (ex. Gradebook) 

• Credit recovery and acceleration (Cyber High distance learning) 

• Integrated learning and assessment systems (Accelerated Reader, READ 180) 

May 2009 12


• Curriculum delivery systems (Cognitive Tutor. Study Island) 

• Problem solving software (Fathom) ALEKS and Cognitive Tutor. 

• CAHSEE preparation (Study Island, ALEKS) 

However, because district licenses are costly, resources are frequently acquired with categorical and 

other site funds and some of the electronic resources require broadband connectivity, these 

electronic resources are not available across the schools, making it difficult to design professional 

development around these tools. This pattern also impacts the resources available to teachers and 

students, and students must learn different tools as they progress through school rather than using a 

core set of tools to engage in more complex learning. 

The district has initiated a process to inventory all instructional software. The plan also calls for the 

development of policies and standards for the acquisition of software and other electronic resources 

and the establishment of an age-appropriate baseline of electronic resources to be available to all 

students and teachers. 

Extended Access to Technology: Student access to technology before and after school hours is 

available through the following programs: 

Beacon Centers: The Beacon Centers at the following sites are open year-round, 

before and after school, evenings and on weekends and offer a variety of services to 

children and families including access to computers and the Internet through the school 

facilities: 

• Davis Middle School Campus • Sunset Neighborhood Center 

• Denman Middle School • Sunset Elementary 

• Everett Middle School • Ulloa Elementary 

• Francis Scott Key Elementary • Wallenberg High School 

• A.P. Giannini Middle School • Washington High School 

• Gordon J. Lau Elementary • Visitation Valley Middle School 

• John Muir Elementary 

Additional After school Programs: In addition, some schools have programs funded by 

21st Century and After-School Education and Safety grants that include computer training or 

access to school labs. 

Parent and Student Training: Digital Connection, a program of One Economy, is training 

high school students in schools in the Bayview and Mission to serve as tech mentors to 

parents and elementary students. Project INSPIRE, a parent leadership training program 

offered through SFUSD’s Family and Community Engagement Team, includes specific 

modules regarding technology use and integration for parents and students. Currently, this 

program is being offered at Bryant Elementary and Cleveland Elementary Schools. In 

addition, the Pearson Foundation, which has conducted digital story telling projects for 

students and professional development for teachers in eight schools, is also sponsoring a 

multimedia lab titled the Center for Educational Excellence, which is located at Burton High 

School. Parent and student trainings are scheduled to take place there for the first time in the 

summer of 2009. 

Mouse Squad, a California based non-profit agency, is implementing the student technician 

training program in nine secondary schools, a program that trains students in computer 

trouble shooting and repair and trains students to become computer technicians at their sites. 

May 2009 13


Mouse Squad is starting or has programs at the Sunset Beacon Center, Downtown High, 

O’Connell, Denman, Claire Lilienthal, Marina, Presidio, Paul Revere and Lawton schools to 

train middle and high school students to serve a computer technicians at their sites. 

BAYCAT (Bayview Hunters Point Center for the Arts and Technology) offers access and 

training to a range of multi-media technologies to students, families and the community at 

large and engages students in digital story telling. BAYCAT has a formal partnership with 

several SFUSD schools. 

School Libraries: Some libraries in secondary schools are open before school, during 

lunch and after school while others fund support staff to keep libraries open during 

extended hours. 

Take-Home Computers: Computers for Youth has placed 145 refurbished, Internet 

ready computers in the homes of sixth and seventh graders at one middle school. 

Parents and students attended two Saturday workshops on basic trouble shooting, 

Internet access and use of the system’s software. 145 of the eligible 147 families 

attended the workshops and received the free computers. AT&T has offered to provide 

free DSL to the participating families. 

Public Libraries: All public libraries have public computer centers and are open after 

school and one or two days on weekends. Computer related classes are offered at the 

main library and many branches. The district has partnered with libraries to enable 

library staff to help parents register for and use School Loop and other district resources. 

Other Community Centers: Community computer programs are located throughout 

San Francisco that offer free access to technology and computer training programs for 

children and their families, including the Ark of Refuge Youth MAP, Arriba Juntos, Bay 

Area Video Coalition, Boys and Girls Club Centers, the Embarcadero YMCA, JVS 

Technology Access Centers, Booker T. Washington Center, and the Community Youth 

Center. 

San Francisco Housing Authority: Starting in 2008, the San Francisco Housing 

Authority has placed computer labs in sixteen housing projects in the City and County. 

B. CURRENT USE OF TECHNOLOGY 

Technology Use by Students – Student Technology Survey: The Planning Committee has 

designed a survey of students to assess the level of home access to technology, student technology 

skill proficiency, actual use of technology at school, and student knowledge of Internet etiquette and 

cyber safety. The survey will be administered to middle and high school students later this spring 

and the data incorporated into the Technology Master Plan. 

Technology Use by Students and Teachers – EdTechProfile Findings: Overall, over 70% of the 

teachers reported they had either an Intermediate or Proficient level technology proficiency skills and 

slightly fewer reported using technology for instructional purposes, such as preparing materials, 

managing the classroom, finding resources for lesson plans and communicating with colleagues. 

May 2009 14


While teachers reported a relatively high level of proficiency with the technology and using 

technology to prepare instructional materials, relatively few reported making regular assignments that 

require students to use technology. These assignments most frequently involved word processing 

and practice. Between 4% and 10% reported using technology at least once a week for reports and 

projects, demonstrations and simulation, correspondence outside the classroom and problem 

solving. 37%-69% reported never using technology for these same purposes. The vast majority 

reported using it once a month or less, probably for special projects. Anecdotal evidence indicates 

that many teachers are using web based collaborative tools, such as Google Sites and Google Docs, 

to post and share student work on the Internet. 3 (See chart 5 on the next page) 

Student Technology Skills Standards: Currently, the district has not adopted technology 

proficiency standards for students, and there is not a consistent technology-related curriculum across 

the schools. However, each high school Career Technical Education Academy or Pathway identifies 

the core technical skills students must master in that program, and some middle schools offer 

elective technology courses. 

However, middle and high school students who are required to participate in intervention programs 

for reading and/or mathematics are frequently unable to participate in elective programs, which 

include the Career Technical Education, due to scheduling conflicts. 

The Technology Plan calls for the establishment of technology standards, the integration of the 

technology proficiency standards into the 21 st Century Curriculum and the identification of a baseline 

of technology that should be available for all students. 

3 (The EdTechProfile is a multiple choice assessment. “Special Projects” is not included as a response choice. There are no 

questions on the use of collaborative software. 

May 2009 15


Career Technical Education: The Career Technical Education (CTE) Department supports three 

high school programs: Career Academies, Career/Education Programs and Regional Occupation 

Programs. 

Career Academies 

and Pathways 

Career/College 

Education Program 

Regional Occupation 

Program 

Career Technical Education Department 

Multi year programs that teach a college-prep 

curriculum organized around a career theme, and 

integrate work-based learning into the curriculum. 

Students participate in internships and take concurrent 

courses at City College of San Francisco. 

9-week career education course offered in the 9 th grade 

is a graduation requirement. It incorporates the Kuder 

Assessment, the online career planning tool. 

Stand-alone courses that provide career technical 

education to S.F. residents 16 or older. 

2700 Students 

2,000 students 

1,099 high 

school students, 

151 adults 

All Career Academies and Pathways incorporate the latest industry-standard tools, including 

technology: Each Academy has a Business/City College Advisory Board, and the Career Technical 

Education Department works closely with the National Academy Foundation (NAF) in the 

development of the curricula, professional development and national networking for the following 

industry sectors: 

• Information technology 

• Engineering 

• Hospitality and Tourism 

• Business and Finance 

• Health Sciences (beginning 2009-2010). 

May 2009 16


The Teacher Academy, Law Academies and Biotechnology pathways do not have a NAF curriculum, 

but these programs follow a similar career academy model. The Career Technical Education 

department is working with school sites who host academies to begin “pushing down” the curricula to 

the tenth and ninth grades. 

Academies and Pathways 

Environmental Science X 

Biotechnology Pathway X X X 

Business/Finance X X 

Cisco Academy X X X 

Construction Pathway X 

Engineering/Construction Trades X X 

Health P X X 

Hospitality and Tourism P X P X 

Information Technology/Digital Arts X P X X P 

Law X X 

Teacher X X 

(P) – School in planning year 

The Strategic Plan and English Learners: SFUSD and County Office of Education serve a 

total of 16,556 English Language Learners, of whom 41% have Spanish as their home language 

and 37% Cantonese. Students in San Francisco Unified and County Office of Education speak 

over 41 languages and English Language Learners make up over 30% of the district’s 

enrollment. (See Chart 6 below.) 

In 2008 the District issued a New Lau Action Plan 4 in response to concerns of the Consent 

Decree and to the current conditions in the district that limit access to educational opportunity 

for the 15,813 English Language learners enrolled in SFUSD and SFCOE schools. The Lau 

Plan actions are placed within the parameters of the Stratefgic Plan and represent a clear sense 

of the district’s commitment to providing a powerful education for all its English Learners. 

The Lau Plan outlines an eleven-tiered program that is rooted in the use of the English 

Learners’ languages, cultures and experiences as the foundation for student success. The 

comprehensive program addresses: 

• Proper identification of English Learner students 

• Appropriate placement of English Learners 

• Access to effective programs 

• Assess to specialized programs and services, including GATE and Special Education, 

• Instruction of English Learners 

May 2009 17 

Balboa 

4 Thirty five years ago the Supreme Court of the United States determined that schools throughout the United States had an 

obligation to ensure that limited English speaking children would not be denied access to education. The court approved the 

New Lau Action Plan September 2008 that addresses the concerns of the Consent Decree and current conditions in the 

district that result in limited access to educational opportunity for the English Learners enrolled in its schools. 

Burton 

Galileo 

Lincoln 

Marshall 

Mission 

O’Connell 

Wallenberg 

Washington


• Staffing and professional development 

• Parent outreach and involvement 

• Monitoring 

• Evaluation 

• Reporting 

Chart 6 

Percent of English Language Learners in SFUSD and SFCOE 

(DataQuest: 2008-09) 

The Lau Plan provides English Learners with six program pathways: Dual Language Immersion, 

Biliteracy, English Plus, Newcomer, Underschooled Student and Long-Term English Learner. 

Each path shares the following principles: 

• Avoid linguistic isolation 

• Incorporate at least 30 minutes/day of English Language Development instruction, 

leveled by proficiency 

• Include content classes taught in primary language or using SDAIE methodology. 

The evaluation and reporting components of the Lau Plan, which are dependent on accurate, 

longitudinal student data and ready access to that data by all stakeholders, is a major driver of 

the Performance Management Initiative and the development of a new robust student 

information and data management system. 

Technology is recognized as a powerful tool to support differentiated learning and English 

language development (ELD) instruction. The Technology Master Plan calls for the integration 

of technology across the Lau Plan to support the eleven tiered action plan with a special focus 

on evaluation and reporting, access to standards-aligned supplemental ELD materials and 

teaching resources, and facilitate parent outreach and involvement. 

Special Education Students: The District serves 6,043 students with special needs of whom 27% 

have speech or language impairments and 42% have specific learning disabilities. Of these 564 

May 2009 18


students with severe impairments are in Special Day classes and in hospital and home settings and 

served through the County. 

Chart 7 

Percent of Students with Special Needs by School Level 

(DataQuest: 2008-09) 

It is district policy to mainstream students to every extent possible. The district offers the following 

general programs: 

• Self-contained Special Day Classes, which include a general education component and may 

include community based activities. 

• Designated Instructional Programs that involve students in the regular educational programs 

at the school receiving specific instruction taught by qualified special education teachers. 

• Resource Specialist Program that involve students in the regular educational programs with 

accommodations and/or modifications to the core curriculum. 

Some of the assistive technology tools available to students include AlphaSmart Key Boards, Stepby-Step 

handheld communications tools, Boardmaker alternative communications tools, FM radio 

system and “sound toteables” to help focus student attention on instruction. 

Replicating a model initially developed by Marin County Office of Education, Special Education has 

established an Assistive Technology Center at Aptos Middle School to house assistive technology 

devices and provide professional development for teachers in the use of these assistive technology 

devices as well as related software. 

The district maintains a web site for teachers and parents of students with special needs with 

links to special resources. However, there is a need for more parent/guardian professional 

development and community training in the use of these assistive tools as well as the wide 

range of online resources for teachers and parents of children with special needs. 

Use of Technology to Deliver Curricula: In previous years the district required each school to 

prepare a comprehensive school plan, which included intervention programs for students performing 

below grade level. While not required, schools frequently identified technology-based intervention 

strategies. While electronic resources are still being used for interventions, the schools are 

encouraged to use resources that accelerate and enrich learning: 

May 2009 19


• Open Court and, High Point electronic resources and e-assessment for Language 

Arts. 

• Waterford Early Literacy Reading Program 

• ALEKS learning and assessment system for CAHSEE preparation in math. 

• Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Math. 

• Cognitive Tutor for Algebra support. 

• READ 180 for students two years or more behind grade level in reading. 

• Achieve 3000 web based reading acceleration program 

• Momentum Math for middle schools 

• Glencoe Algebra Readiness for grades 6-7 

• Discovery Streaming to build context for reading 

• Electronic textbook resources 

• Algebraic Thinking for professional development 

• CyberHigh School and CCSF on-line for credit recovery 

• Digital Story Telling and other project based learning strategies 

• Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) online advanced courses at eight 

schools 

• Renzulli Learning System, now being introduced in partnership the National Urban 

Alliance, to spur the “giftedness” in all students. 

Six middle schools and five high schools are working with Pearson Foundation and with KQED- 

TV to implement Digital Story Telling, a project based learning model in which students weave 

images, music, and narrative and voice to publish and disseminate meaningful stories using a 

range of technology tools. BAYCAT and a number of other community-based organizations are 

also engaging students in Digital Story Telling in the schools and in the community. 

Two middle schools are implementing algebraic thinking with the use of interactive whiteboards. 

This model is now being expanded into other math classes as the electronic white boards and 

the accompanying professional development are being deployed. Only some members of the 

two cohorts of teachers who have received electronic whiteboards are meeting monthly in 

Professional Learning Communities (PLC) to develop interactive lessons for students. 

Probeware is now available at all middle and high schools to support inquiry-based science, 

which have been adopted by many science teachers. 

With the new textbook adoptions, publishers provide extensive electronic and/or on-line teacher and 

student resource materials, including teacher lesson resources, student projects and full video. 

However, these core curricular resources are now available only to students and teachers who have 

ready access to broadband connectivity, up-to-date computers and presentation units. 

The district received a grant to implement the Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY), 

computer-based advanced courses, for students at eight Title 1 Schools. This program will be 

implemented in the spring and summer of 2009 as adequate hardware is deployed. 

Although much of the district-licensed software was acquired in the last five years, teachers need 

greater access to reliable computers and professional development before these tools are more fully 

utilized in the classroom or lab. 

Balanced Score Cards and Uses of Technology in 2009-2010: After participating in a series of 

training sessions on the School Quality, Equity and Access Matrix and the Balanced Scorecards 

May 2009 20


(BSC) and school wide planning processes, all schools submitted their first BSC in February 2009. 

The BSC is a comprehensive site plan developed by the whole school community that details how 

the school will align resources towards their specific objectives to achieve the goals outlined in the 

Strategic Plan. Each BSC must address how technology will be used to accelerate student 

achievement and to increase equity and access. While the BSCs are still under review, some 

common strategies around technology are emerging for 2009-2010: 

• Integration of technology across the curriculum 

• Student use of electronic resources as an integral part of in-school and after-school 

intervention programs 

• Expanded use of technology-embedded project based learning 

• More targeted use of technology to address identified student needs 

• Getting technology into the hands of all students 

• Developing technology and information literacy 

• Use of distance learning technologies as alternatives for course credit earning 

Use of Technology for Data, Assessment and Accountability: In addition to the state STAR 

tests for summative assessment data, the district currently has developed common benchmark, 

formative assessments for math in grades K through 8 that are administered five times a year. 

However, some of the assessments for grades K-5 for recent textbook adoptions had to be revised, a 

process which should be completed by 2009-10. 

There are two discrete data management systems used in the district: 

• OARS, a district-developed data management system for the benchmark assessment data . 

Administrators and teachers were trained on the OARS tool and to use that formative data to 

plan instruction, starting with the Reading First, Dream, School Assistance and Intervention 

Team (SAIT) and Middle School Teacher Leaders Initiative (MSTLI) schools. The 

benchmark assessments are scanned either at the site or centrally and uploaded to OARS. 

Some schools manage the entire process, printing their own scantrons, administering the 

assessments and processing the data. The plan is to migrate all schools to this model. 

• Cruncher data system to manage data from state standardized tests and the student 

information system. Research, Assessment and Accountability implemented a “train the 

trainer” model with administrators in the use of Cruncher and the interpretation of that data. 

The district will be implementing a new data management system, Data Director, for the 2009-2010 

school year, which will provide web-based easy access to administrators and teachers regarding 

student data. 

The district is the second field site nationally for the Strategic Education Research Partnership 

(SERP), an alliance designed to provide the infrastructure to implement a coherent and sustained 

research, development, and implementation program. The initial focus is on middle school 

mathematics and science with the goal of making all benchmark assessments for grades Pre K-12 

more authentic by adding performance assessments. 

SERP is in the second year of working with the Middle School Teacher Leader Initiative (MSTLI) to 

get teachers to analyze changes in the benchmark assessments and to understand what the data 

means in terms of instruction. 

May 2009 21


In addition there are formative assessments for most interventions and support programs, such as 

Waterford Early Literacy, Reading First, Accelerated Reading and Math, and READ 180. These 

assessment data are not available across the district and are not captured by either of the district’s 

data systems. These data sources will be included with the implementation of the new data system. 

While the district has made significant strides in implementing benchmark assessments and 

engaging teachers and administrators in the use of student data, there is a need for the following: 

• Timely diagnostic and formative data for grades Pre-K-12 in all core curricular areas. 

• A consistent process to administer and process local assessments. 

• A more robust integrated data system that provides ready and easy access to a wide range 

of reports. 

• More support for teachers and administrators for deeper analyses of student data and 

student work. 

Current Use of Technology to Promote Classroom/School Management: The district recently 

acquired School Loop, a web-based portal for teachers, students and parents. Teachers have 

access to a range of online classroom management tools and will be able to record attendance and 

grades on-line, eliminating time consuming and cumbersome paper processes. Students and 

parents will have the ability to monitor student progress, access assignments, test schedules, 

homework resources, school events and news and communicate with teachers and administrators. 

School Loop also e-mails or places nightly multilingual calls to parents with student homework and 

attendance to families without Internet access. This spring School Loop is being phased in at twentyone 

schools with a training and support component, with full deployment scheduled for fall 2009. 

The IT Department is expanding the use of Sharepoint, a web-based portal that provides tools for 

classroom management, collaboration, personal productivity, web content management and time 

management. The district is currently re-designing the district and school websites using Sharepoint 

to give district departments and school sites greater ease-of-use and control over the content on their 

web pages. The look and feel of the district and school web sites are being standardized to make 

navigation easier for parents and other end users. 

Many principals and curriculum content specialist use cell phones, iPhones and/or Blackberries for 

Internet access, personal productivity and time management. The district curriculum content 

specialists and support personnel also use the CTAP based OMS calendar technology to advertise 

professional development offerings, provide on-line registration, and input consultation information on 

services provided to schools. Many district departments use MS Outlook, MS Sharepoint, 

Entourage, Google Calendar and Google Docs to manage their own schedules and communication. 

In addition, several of the instructional media now in use, such as Accelerated Reader and Math, 

ALEKS, READ 180 and Plato provide assessment and classroom management tools. District 

software selection and review as coordinated by the new Supervisor of Educational technology will 

be critical to successful implementation of classroom/lab based software. 

Balanced Score Cards and Future Uses of Technology in 2009-2010: After participating in a 

series of training sessions on the School Quality, Equity and Access Matrix, and the Balanced 

Scorecards (BSC) and school wide planning processes, all schools submitted their first BSC in 

February 2009. The BSC is a comprehensive site plan developed by the whole school community 

May 2009 22


that details how the school will align resources towards their specific strategies to achieve the goals 

outlined in the Strategic Plan. Each BSC must address how technology will be used to accelerate 

student achievement and to increase equity and access. While the BSCs are still under review, 

powerful common strategies around technology are emerging for 2009-2010: 

• Integration of technology across the curriculum 

• Student use of electronic resources as an integral part of in-school and after-school 

intervention programs 

• Expanded use of technology-embedded project based learning 

• More targeted use of technology to address identified student needs 

• Getting technology into the hands of all students 

• Developing technology and information literacy 

• Use of distance learning technologies as alternatives for course credit earning 

C. DISTRICT’S CURRICULAR GOALS SUPPORTED BY THE TECHNOLOGY PLAN 

The SFUSD Strategic Plan, “Beyond the Talk: Taking Action to Educate Every Child Now,” is 

the primary driver of the Technology Master Plan. 

District Strategic Plan: On May 28, 2008, the San Francisco School Board adopted a new five-year 

strategic plan 5 that places equity, student achievement and accountability at the forefront. The 

Strategic Plan goes beyond the idea of equitable access for all students. Rather the plan charges the 

schools and district staff to eliminate the variability in achievement between the district’s highest and 

lowest performing subgroups of students and ending the historic power of demographics. Equity is 

gauged by student outcome and not by allocation of resources. 

The Strategic Plan holds that a 21 st century education should build on a foundation of personalized, 

relevant learning that is meaningful and engaging for each student. Students must learn from and 

collaborate with diverse peers of multiple cultures, languages, religions and origins. For truly socially 

conscious and globally competitive students, the district must also embed 21 st century learning, such 

as technological literacy and critical and creative thinking skills, in all the subjects that compose this 

broader, more rigorous curriculum. 6 This technology plan is designed to support the SFUSD’s 

strategic plan and the academic achievement goals. 

To implement the mammoth undertaking of school, district and community transformation, the district 

has embarked on three initiatives: 

• 21 st Century Curriculum Initiative to prepare all students to success in an increasingly 

competitive world. 

• Equity-Centered Professional Learning Initiative to create and sustain professional 

learning communities to address inequitable practices and policies. 

• Performance Management Initiative to direct sufficient resources towards the 

initiatives. 

5 “Beyond the Talk: Taking Action to Education Every Child Now,” San Francisco Unified School District, 2008 

6 Abstracted from “Beyond the Talk” 

May 2009 23


As illustrated in the chart below, the Strategic Plan is the primary driver of each strand in the Master 

Plan for Instructional Technology. 

Strategic Plan Goals Strategic Plan Initiatives Instructional Technology Plan 

Goal 1: 

Access and Equity 

Goal 2: 

Student Achievement 

Goal 3: 

Accountability 

Equity Centered Professional 

Learning 

21 st Century Curriculum 

Initiative 

Performance Management 

Initiative 

Strand 4: Professional Development 

Strand 5: Infrastructure 

Strand 3: Curriculum 


Strand 3: Curriculum 

Strand 4: Professional Development 


Strand 7: Monitoring and Evaluation 

The essential purpose of the Technology Master Plan is to provide a three year roadmap for the 

use of technology to achieve the vision laid out in the Strategic Plan and create 21 st century 

learning environments for all San Francisco students and teachers. 

Curriculum Focus: While the Strategic Plan’s initiatives are the primary drivers of the 

Technology Master Plan, the 21 st Century Curriculum Initiative 7 8 9 provides the focus for this 

Curriculum Strand. The Initiative seeks to provide an innovative and transformative educational 

alternative to the traditional approaches – one that: 

• Builds on a foundation of personalized, relevant learning that is meaningful and 

engaging for each student 

• Fosters collaborative learning inclusive of cultural, linguistic and racial diversity 

• Embeds 21st century learning across a broader, more rigorous curriculum 

Based on extensive research, 10 11 12 , 21 st century learning is defined as the set of learning and 

innovation skills that separate students who are prepared for increasingly complex life and work 

environments in the 21 st century and those who are not. For SFUSD, Twenty-first century skills 

encompass: 

• Academic Competency 

• Multilingual/Cross-cultural Competency 

• Technological Literacy: Information, Media and Information, Communications and 

Technology Literacy 

• Aesthetic Sensibility 

• Critical & Creative Thinking, Reasoning, and Solution Seeking 

• Social, Environmental, & Civic Responsibility 

• Strength of Character 

There are two major components of the 21 st Century Curriculum Initiative: 

7 st 

(2008) 21 Century Integrated Curriculum Design Team Convening, San Francisco Unified School District and the University of California, 

San Francisco 

8 

Lake, Kathy (1994). Integrated Curriculum, School Improvement Research Series, NWREL. http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/8/c016.html 

9 st 

The 21 Century Curriculum Initiative addresses the District-adopted California Department of Education’s (CDE) content standards. These 

standards are described in Content Standards for California Public Schools Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. 9 

10 

Metiri Group, (2006). Technology in Schools: What the Research Says. http://www.metiri.com/features.html 

11 

Metiri Group, (2008). Multimodal Learning Through Media: What Research Says. http://www.metiri.com/features.html 

12 http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/ 

May 2009 24


1. Establishing Models of Success – The 21 st Century Integrated Science-Arts and 

Literacy Curriculum: In the summer of 2008, the Associate Superintendent of 

Academics and Professional Development convened the 21 st Century Integrated 

Curriculum Design Team (“Design Team”). The team was charged to develop a Pre-K- 

12 curriculum that integrates the science, arts and literacy as an educational approach 

that prepares children for lifelong learning. 13 The curriculum gives the arts a central 

place in the core curriculum to make content more accessible, to celebrate multiple 

perspectives, engage children in complex forms of problem solving, and expand the 

14 15 

learning beyond language. 

The selection process for the first cohort of three elementary, one middle school and 1 

high school for 2009-2010 began in January 2009. The selection of these schools was 

through an application process that considered, among other factors, the school’s 

commitment to the curriculum change process, student needs, demographics, and 

community support. These schools will receive the requisite technology tools and 

infrastructure, professional development and support and ongoing assessment of 

progress. The monitoring and documentation of progress will not only inform the 

implementation of the 21 st Century Integrated Science, Arts, Literacy Curriculum at the 

target schools but will also serve as models for other schools in the district for best 

practices and planning processes. The Integrated 21 st Century Curriculum Initiative is 

supported through the Partnership for the 21 st Century composed of the district, the 

University of California, San Francisco and KQED-TV: 

a. Site Developed 21 st Century Integrated Curriculum: Over time as schools implement 

and refine their Balanced Score Cards, each school or school cluster will design and 

implement a 21 st century curriculum that is cross curricular, project based and uses 21 st 

century technology tools to address the needs of their particular students and families. 

The District will share lessons learned and best practices from the “models for success” 

schools and provide the professional development and support as the schools engage in 

these transformation processes. Therefore, over time all schools will adopt a rigorous 

integrated curriculum in which technology is embedded. 

Strategic Plan and the LEA Program Improvement Plan: The same principles that drive the 

21 st Century Integrated Curriculum Initiative also shape the coherent and systemic approach to 

transform the under performing program improvement schools. 16 

In both district plans, equity is obtained when every student graduates with skills required for 

successful 21 st century citizenship. Requisite support for schools can be represented using a 

pyramid (see below) where what all students and schools receive makes up the base or floor 

13 

http://suzyred.com/integratedcurriculum.html; http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/8/c016.html; 

http://www.arecheworks.org/projects/tcsp/ic_guide.html 

http://vocserve.berkeley.edu/ST2.1/TowardsanIntegrated.html 

http://www.neiu.edu/_middle/Modules?science%20mods/amazon%20componenets/AmazonComponents3.html 

14 

Wisner, E. “Ten Lessons the Arts Teach” The Arts and Creation of Mind. 2000. Yale University Press Also see 

http://www.asbindia.info/asb21/ 

15 

http://ncte.org/groups/cee/positions/122892.htm 

http://www.name.org/resources/defining_multicultural_education.htm 

http:/www.mdrc.org/pu9blications/366/overview.html 

16 

“Moving Beyond the Talk to RESULTS,” San Francisco Unified School District Local Education Agency Plan, February 2009/ 

May 2009 25


plan. Components of the base are currently being assessed through the District Assistance 

Intervention Team (DAIT) needs assessment and the Quality, Equity and Access Matrix. 

When a school is under performing and is more highly impacted by inequitable district practices, 

the level of district involvement will be greater and resources more highly leveraged. At the tip 

of the pyramid are the pilots and models, such as the 21 st Century Integrated Science, Arts and 

Literacy Curriculum schools. These pilot schools and models will serve as models for success 

and will be the focus of district research and planning. 

Models/ 

Pilots 

STAR/Dream 

Underserved Populations 

All Students/Schools 

Figure 8: Differential Site Support: 

Balance of Site/District Involvement 17 

Strategic partnerships are positioned to substantively support the reform strategies and bring 

with them vital resources, including technology resources and expertise, to address school 

needs, especially those under performing schools and schools with populations of students with 

special needs. Five specific emerging partnerships are of particular importance: 

• National Urban Alliance and its partnerships with the International Center for 

Learning Potential, Stanford’s Hammond School Reform /LEADS networks, Renzulli 

Learning Systems, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) 

Urban Initiative, National Council on Educating Black Children, the Thinking 

Foundation and the Big Picture (pedagogical development for challenging and 

rigorous curriculum, professional development and on-site coaching and modeling 

for target schools). 

• UC San Francisco and KQED-TV (for development of the 21 st Century Integrated 

Curriculum Initiative.) 

• New Day for Learning Partnership with SF School Alliance, SF Department of 

Children, Youth and their Families, SF Communities of Opportunity and the SF Office 

17 Excerpt from the San Francisco Unified School District LEA Plan: “Moving Beyond the Talk to RESULTS.” March 2009 

May 2009 26 

D 

I 

s 

t 

r 

I 

c 

t 

E 

n 

g 

a 

g 

e 

m 

e 

n 

t


of the Mayor (to develop citywide policies and effective partnerships for children to 

create cohesive, protects pathways for students to learn year round in settings 

throughout San Francisco.) 

• Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP) (to rigorously test scientific 

research and research based best practices in real school settings.) 

• Stanford University Hammond LEADS (Leadership, Equity and Accountability 

in Schools and District) Partnership (to further the work of the School Redesign 

Network to transform secondary schools.) 

• Pearson Foundation and the Mobile Learning Institute (MLI): (To continue 

professional development and in-class coaching programs focused on the use of 

digital media and mobility tools to support 21st Century Skills development, and to 

support the Mobile Learning Institute at Burton High School.) 

District Support Strategies: SFUSD will provide support to its initiatives through seven basic 

strategies: 

• Liaisons and Facilitators, such as the Balance Score Card Liaison and 

Instructional Reform Facilitators 

• English Learner Support as contained in the New Lau English language Learner 

Plan September 2008 and the multilingual Education Plan. 

• National Urban Alliance Partnership to serve a cohort of ten to twenty high-need 

schools over a three to five year span. 

• High Leverage Practices as described in the Directory of Promising Practices (see 

below) 

• School Networks and District wide Learning for collegial support of schools 

implementation of the Balanced Score Cards. 

• Benchmark Assessments to allow students and teachers to monitor student 

progress and engage stakeholders in evidence-based conversations about student 

needs. 

• Targeted Services to High Need Student Subgroups, such as African-American, 

Latino and Samoan students, English Learners and Special Education Students. 

Promising Practices Directory: The district and the schools have implemented a wide range 

of programs to improve student learning and strengthen teaching. The district is developing a 

Promising Practices Website and Directory to showcase programs and services that can help 

principals identify those programs with promising and effective practices that address specific 

SFUSD needs. A process of co-designing the resource with district staff, principals, students 

and teachers is under development. In addition, the district is launching a site nomination 

process to help staff to assess the alignment of vendor programs and services to the Strategic 

Plan. 

The Performance Management Initiative in the Strategic Plan is charged with designing and 

implementing a comprehensive system of performance management: 

“Building on the idea that everyone, from students to the superintendent, must have sufficient 

resources, information and support to have efficacy in their endeavors, SFUSD is designing 

and implementing a comprehensive system of performance management…The performance 

management initiative will focus our conversations of District Scorecard data so that all staff 

know and understand their role in supporting student achievement, are provided the support 

May 2009 27


and professional development required for success in their roles and have voice and power in 

adjusting the plan over time.” 18 

The Performance Management Initiative has created the School Quality, Equity and Access Matrix, a 

database dashboard that allows for deep analyses of each school’s student data by sub-groups. 

Currently the matrix draws from absolute performance data (example, state tests like STAR), but 

over the next few years other performance measures will be included, such as 

• Program data to include: 

o Professional development data for teachers and to assess the impact of this training 

and support on classroom performance. 

o Program specific data 

• Diagnostic and formative data 

However a number of systems and tools must be developed to provide ready access to and analysis 

of that critical data and to monitor progress, including: 

• A comprehensive assessment and data system: In 2009-2010 the district is 

implementing a data system that can pull data from multiple sources and formats to 

provide longitudinal tracking and reporting of student assessment data, student 

demographic data, and program/event attendance, as well as professional development 

activities, paraprofessional activities, student grades and teacher data. 

• Student Information System: Simultaneously the district is assessing alternative 

integrated student information systems (SIS). New SIS systems are designed to be web 

based, use true relational databases such as SQL, are easier to manage and more 

intuitive for end users, have greater functionality and can be readily customized to 

address local needs. 

• Exemplars of student work and lesson plans that illustrate “proficiency” on state 

curriculum standards that could be used by teachers in their analyses of student work. 

• Performance Management System: To operationalize the Strategic Plan it is important 

to (a) identify the various levels of district support vital to supporting the schools, (b) for 

each department to self-assess its ability to address the schools’ needs, (c) create 

professional learning communities across the central office and (d) lastly to be able to 

monitor the effectiveness of service delivery. The district is now exploring tools and 

systems to monitor that progress through observation protocols, self-reflection tools, 

showcases and a process for revisions. 

SUMMARY OF CURRICULUM NEEDS 

What the evidence tells us: 

• There are not a sufficient number of computers in the schools. 

• Computers are not equally available in all schools. 

• There are a large number of aging computers. 

• Only some classrooms have advanced learning tools (e.g. Interactive whiteboards, projectors 

or document cameras) 

• There is no current inventory of hardware and software available in the schools. 

18 “Beyond the Talk: Taking Action to Educate Every Child now.” page8 

May 2009 28


• There is a need for guidelines for or a system to monitor the effective use of computers in the 

classroom or in lab settings. 

• Some schools are using software for practice and intervention, while a few are emphasizing 

programs for enrichment and learning acceleration. 

• There is a need for district wide policies and procedures to evaluate software, prior to 

purchase and to assess use and effectiveness of software used with students. 

• There is a need to identify the funding and an implementation timeline of a hardware 

replacement policy. 

• Over 70% of the teachers reported having Intermediate to Proficient technology skills and use 

technology for productivity on a regular basis. 

• The vast majority of teachers do not regularly require students to use technology for 

assignment on a regular basis. Students most frequently use technology for word processing 

and research. 

• The district has not yet adopted technology proficiency standards for students, and there is 

not a consistent technology integrated curriculum across the schools. 

• All teachers may not be familiar with, or able to access, the online resources that accompany 

content area textbooks. 

• There are some schools doing innovative work with Digital Story Telling. 

• There are seventy secondary teachers being trained this year by the new Supervisor of 

Technology, Curriculum Technology Teachers, Librarians and CTAP. 

• There are just some teachers meeting to support one another and develop lesson units for 

their interactive whiteboards. 

• Software intended for GATE students is now being used by all students for enrichment in 

some schools. 

• There are multiple strategic partnerships, and multiple support strategies, networks and 

personnel to support the district’s vision to reduce the achievement gap. 

• District leadership wants virtual classes, video and audio connectivity between all groups, a 

change in instructional practice and student/teacher roles, deep on-going research to inform 

planning, customized professional development, and access for ALL students and parents to 

classrooms and technology tools 

The vision for the Strategic Plan, and for the Technology Master Plan that supports it, represents a 

bold change of direction. But, like the Strategic Plan, the Technology Master Plan calls for 

developmental or foundational work over the next few years. Seven over-arching implementation 

strategies were developed to address the needs identified in the Curriculum strand over the next 

three years of the Technology Plan. 

• 21 st Century Curriculum: The Strategic Plan calls for the design and implementation of a 

student-centered, cross-curricular, project based and technology-embedded curriculum in all 

schools through a collaborative or co-designing process bringing together external expertise 

in research-based best practices with the site knowledge and expertise about the students’ 

needs. Technology is one of the central components of the 21 st century curriculum. 

Therefore, technology planning must integrated into the planning and the implementation 

processes for the 21 st Century Curriculum Initiative. (See Strand 3: Curriculum: Goals) 

• 21 st Century Technology Suite and Tiers of Support: Every student and teacher must 

have access to and be able to use a common, standardized suite of technology or baseline 

technology that supports 21 st century learning skills and that ensures equitable access to the 

curriculum. This baseline set of tools is referred to as the “21 st Century Technology Suite” 

throughout the rest of this Master Plan and addresses the current inequitable access to and 

May 2009 29


use of technology. This concept is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s model of a pyramid of 

district support, with the base of the pyramid representing what all students should receive. 19 

Best Practices, R&D 

(Initial “Suite” Sites) 

Intervention & learning 

acceleration tools 

21 st Century 

Technology Suite 

Broadband 

Infrastructure 

Data/Assessment 

System 

Models/ 

Pilots 

STAR/Dream 

Underserved Populations 

All 

Students/Schools 

Figure 9 Balance of Site/District Involvement 

That 21 st Century Technology Suite and the technology standards will be defined in year one 

of the Technology Plan, the 21 st Century learning skills and the 21 st Century Curriculum 

defined in the Strategic Plan suggest that the following are essential technology tools for the 

21 st century classroom: 

• Mobile computing devices for students and teachers (e.g. Netbooks, laptops) 

• Projection system (e.g. interactive integrated white boards; LCD projectors, document 

cameras, slate systems) 

• Networked printer for student publishing 

• Student Response System to work with the whiteboard for student feedback 

• Productivity software differentiated by grade level, lab vs. classroom setting, teacher and 

student end users 

• Wired and wireless voice, video and data connectivity 

• Adequate electrical 

• Integrated audio, safety and communications systems, including phones and clocks 

• Technology security, lockdown and/or tracking systems 

(See Strand 3: Curriculum and Strand 5: Infrastructure: Goals) 

• Infrastructure: The district must develop a robust, reliable network infrastructure to support 

classrooms “without walls” and provide ready access to the powerful learning and teaching 

resources. The current network cannot support the requirements of the Strategic Plan. 

(See Strand 5: Infrastructure Goals) 

Standards, Policies and Systems: Technology standards, student and teacher technology 

proficiency standards, and policies relating to technology use, such as filtering, cyber-safety 

and student use of hand-held devices must be developed or updated to make them 

19 “ San Francisco Unified School District LEA Plan: Moving Beyond the Talk to RESULTS,” March 2009, p. 8 

May 2009 30 

D 

I 

s 

t 

r 

I 

c 

t 

E 

n 

g 

a 

g 

e 

m 

e 

n 

t


consistent with and supportive of the goals of the Strategic Plan and 21 st century learning. 

Systems, such as those that support data-driven decision-making and program management 

and assessment, must be upgraded to meet the new demands (See Strand 3: Curriculum 

and Strand 5: Infrastructure: Goals). This plan calls for the Supervisor of Technology to work 

with the Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG) and a network of Technology 

Teacher Leaders across the district to develop recommendations for these policies and 

standards. The Research, Planning and Assessment (RPA) Department is addressing 

needed data systems to support the Performance Management Initiative (See Strand 5: 

Infrastructure: Goals). 

• Develop Staff Capacity: In the past technology planning and technology integration 

support have been entrusted to a relatively small group of site-based technology 

integration specialists (Curriculum Technology Integration Teachers, Teacher Leaders, 

etc) that are no longer funded at most schools. The technology related programs were 

largely outside of or tangential to the content areas and to reform efforts. 

However, the 21 st Century Integrated Curriculum Initiative calls for the integration of 

technology across all curricular areas for grades Pre-K-12 on a district-wide basis. A 

new professional development support paradigm will be needed to support the 3,300 

teachers and 300 administrators as they implement the 21 st century curriculum and learn 

how to make technology an integral part of teaching and learning. In addition, the 

Strategic Plan, the Lau Plan, and the Program Improvement LEA Plan establish the 

importance of reform, content, and professional development coaches, facilitators and 

service providers. 

To support technology on this scale the district must ensure that all reform, curriculum 

and professional development leaders at the district and site level become technology 

integration specialists within their respective disciplines. Content specialists or TSAs, 

BTSA support staff, Teacher Leaders, Instructional Resource Facilitators along with 

special program support staff for English Learners, Special Education students and 

Parent and Family Engagement will have to understand the functionality of the 

technology tools and how these tools are used within a 21 st century curriculum. 

The Technology Plan calls for the collaboration between a small cadre of technology 

integration specialists and the district and site professional development leaders to coplan 

and deliver professional and curriculum development. In the short run the 

collaboration will ensure that technology is integrated into ongoing professional and 

curriculum development. In the longer term, the district will develop a “critical mass” of 

district and site instructional leaders who understand both content and technology and 

can support teachers as they implement the 21 st century curriculum in their classrooms 

(and support principals as they guide their schools through the transformation process) 

(See Strand 3 – Professional Development: Goals). 

• Tie Technology Deployment to Curriculum and Professional Development 

Implementation: As the 21 st Century Integrated Curriculum and other pilots are 

implemented, the technology tools (hardware, software and infrastructure) must be put in 

place along with the requisite professional development and technology proficiency 

training. Conversely, the deployment of technology, such as the interactive whiteboards, 

must be accompanied by the professional development to build the technology 

proficiency skills and ensure the appropriate use of the tools as a teaching and learning 

resource. These strategies will require an unprecedented level of planning and 

May 2009 31


coordination between APD, other district departments, the schools and ITD. (See 

Strand 3: Curriculum, Strand 4” Professional Development, Strand 5: Infrastructure and 

Monitoring and Evaluation: Goals) 

• Funding and Budget: While the approval of the parcel tax in 2008 allows the 

district to fund critical infrastructure programs and to plan for technology at an 

unprecedented level, the parcel tax alone is not sufficient to address the district’s 

technology goals. It is a given that the district will have to develop strategies to attract 

new funding for technology and for technology support services. However, it must also 

develop clear expectations regarding technology, define clear annual targets and to 

coordinate and leverage resources from multiple sources to fund the 21 st Century 

Technology Suite for all students and to provide the support services outlined in the 

Technology Master Plan. (See Strand 6: Funding and Budget) 

CURRICULUM GOALS, BENCHMARKS, STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE 

GOAL D1. TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING: All students in grades Pre-K-12, 

specifically focusing on our underserved students such as Special Education, County/Court 

School students, and linguistically and culturally diverse students will be fully immersed in a 21 st 

century integrated, project-based curriculum in which a standardized suite of technology tools 

will be used to foster 21 st century learning skills, create authentic learning environments and 

engage students in multi-cultural, multilingual learning communities as defined in the district’s 

Strategic Plan. 

Objective D1.1: Models of Success -Fifteen schools will implement the 21 st Century 

Integrated Science, Arts and Literacy Curriculum Initiative and serve as “models of success” for 

the design and implementation of 21 st century cross-curricular, project based curricula by other 

schools in the district. 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 five schools will implement the 21 st century Integrated Science, Arts and 

Literacy Curriculum 

By 2011 ten schools will implement the 21 st Century Integrated Science, Arts and 

Literacy Curriculum 

By 2012 fifteen schools will implement the 21 st Century Integrated Science, Arts and 

Literacy Curriculum. 

Objective D1.2: 21 st Century Curriculum - All schools will design and begin to implement a 

21 st century integrated, project-based and technology embedded curricula as defined in the 21 st 

Century Curriculum Initiative and driven by the schools’ Balance Score Cards to address the 

needs of their students 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 20% of the schools will design and begin to implement a 21 st century integrated, 

project-based and technology embedded curricula. 

By 2011 50% of the schools will design and begin to implement a 21 st century integrated, 

project-based and technology embedded curricula. 

By 2012 100% of the schools will design and begin to implement a 21 st century 

integrated, project-based and technology embedded curricula. 

May 2009 32


Implementation Strategies Year 

Person responsible: Associate Superintendent APD,CIO/ITD, SOIS, Principals 

1. Ensure instructional technology expertise is an integral part of the: 

a. 21 st Century Integrated Curriculum Design Team through 

participation of District technology staff and staff from UCSF, KQED 

and the other strategic partners described on page 26-27). 

b. Support given to schools as they design and implement their 21 st century 

curricula based on their BSC driven by goals of the Strategic Plan and 

the needs of their students and families through district staff and the 

strategic partners. 

c. New Lau EL Plan and the Multilingual Plan through co-planning with 

technology integration specialists from the district or strategic partners. 

2. Develop processes and procedures to coordinate the planning and implementation 

of the 21 st Century Curriculum Initiative with Information Technology (IT) 

3. Design and implement the Promising Practices Website and Directory 1-2 

4. Provide an online course directory to enable students and parents to access the full 

range of courses and make informed decisions. 

5. Create and support teams of teachers and content specialists to develop technology 

embedded lesson units across the curriculum and to share best practices (See also 

Strand 4: Professional Development - “Innovative Classrooms”). 

6. Continue to strengthen and expand the Career Technical Education pathways and 

academies, starting with implementation of four Academies now in the Planning 

Year, extending the program to grades nine and ten and developing a district 

curriculum for the Biotechnology and the AoIT Academy. 

May 2009 33 

1-3 

1 

2 

1-3 

1-3


7. Assess distance learning virtual classroom options, such as CyberHigh and 

EPGY, for course credit earning alternatives for credit recovery, AP courses, low 

enrollment courses, coursework for GATE students, and high interest classes in 

which students are otherwise unable to enroll. 

8. Implement a comprehensive distance learning program as a course credit 

earning alternative 

9. Pilot the Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) at eight schools 1 

10. Expand EPGY or comparable course credit earning alternative for GATE and 

other high achieving students. . 

11. Implement and assess the Renzulli Learning System as a tool to maximize 

Internet resources to stimulate student exploration and creativity. 

12. Expand the partnerships with community colleges to allow GATE and other 

students to accelerate student graduation through online courses. 

13. Develop a system for electronic student portfolios that follow students through 

their school career using School Loop or comparable technology. 

14. Develop select partnerships with regional companies, universities and with 

organizations developing educational applications for technology to adopt 

schools to facilitate the implementation of the 21 st Century Initiative. 

Goal E1. Technological and information literacy skills: 

Goal F1. Appropriate and Ethical Use of Information Technology: 

Goal G1. Internet Safety (Online Privacy and Cyber-Safety) 

All students will acquire and apply the information literacy skills to recognize the importance of 

equitable access to information in a democratic society, respect the principles of intellectual 

freedom and intellectual property rights, exercise appropriate and ethical use of technology and 

understand the importance of online privacy, etiquette and safety. 

Objective E1, F1, and G1: By 2012 all students will be able to demonstrate grade level 

appropriate competencies in the Research and Information Fluency, Ethical Use, and Internet 

Safety standards as defined by the SFUSD Technology and Information Literacy Scope and 

Sequence which is based on International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) NETS. 20 . 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 25% of the students will demonstrate grade level appropriate competencies. 

By 2011 50% of the students will demonstrate grade level appropriate competencies. 

By 2012 all students will demonstrate grade level appropriate competencies. 

20 1998 National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Students, International Society for Technology in Education. 

http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=NETS 

May 2009 34 

1-2 

3 

2-3 

1 

2-3 

3 

1-3


Strategies Year 

Person responsible: Assoc. Superintendent, APD; CIO; SOIS; Principals 

1. Adopt articulated, grade level technology proficiency standards for Pre-K-12 

that address 21 century skills and student technology use, proficiency and 

information literacy, appropriate and ethical use, and internet safety based on 

the National Educational Standards for Students (NETS) developed by ISTE. 

2. Incorporate information literacy skills, appropriate and ethical use of technology 

and online privacy and safety into the 21 st century integrated curriculum 

lessons for each grade level. 

3. Review Acceptable Use Policies and other technology related policies to align them 

with the full, safe and appropriate use of technology (e.g., Internet filtering and other 

cyber-safety issues, distance learning, use of cell phones and other handheld 

devices 

4. Review and adopt as necessary board policies and administrative regulations 

and procedures to deal appropriately with violations of ethical use and cyber 

safety policies. 

5. Review existing technology curricula in middle school, the ninth grade technology 

modules and the academies and pathways to ensure that digital citizenship, ethical 

technology behavior and cyber safety are being taught and assessed. 

6. Assess iSafe and other cyber-safety curriculum 1 

7. Supplement the integrated curriculum lessons with an online curriculum, such 

as iSafe, that reinforces ethical use of technology, literacy skills and cybersafety. 

8. Build a student leadership program for online safety and privacy in secondary 

schools (e.g. iSafe) 

9. Develop, review and revise as necessary the district filtering system and 

policies to ensure the greatest access to online resources while complying with 

Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). 

10. Develop on-line permissions that are differentiated for students, teachers and 

administrators and develop a system to respond in a timely and appropriated 

manner to staff requests for access. 

11. Encourage each school to host assemblies, library orientations and/or special 

events featuring cyber-safety and ethical technology use. 

12. Post guidelines for ethical use of information technology and online privacy and 

cyber safety practices in all instructional rooms with computers and Internet 

access. 

13. Distribute information to families regarding the ethical use of information 

technology and online privacy and cyber safety through the district newsletter 

and the web site. 

14. Include modules in parent education classes conducted by the schools and by 

the Parent Relations Department that address ethical use of information 

technology and online privacy and cyber safety. 

May 2009 35 

1 

1-3 

1-2 

1 

1-2 

2-3 

2-3 

1 

1 

1-3 

1 

1-3 

2-3


GOAL H1. APPROPRIATE ACCESS BY ALL STUDENTS AND TEACHERS: All students and teachers 

will have ready and equitable access to, and learn to use, a standard suite of high quality, agelevel 

appropriate instructional technology (“21 st Century Technology Suite) to achieve 

proficiency in all curriculum content areas and to become 21 st century learners. The use of 

these tools will be embedded in an integrated, interdisciplinary, multicultural and multilingual 

curriculum. The district and the school sites will ensure that the 21 st Century Technology Suite, 

including the infrastructure, hardware and electronic resources, are coordinated with the 

planning and implementation of the 21 st Century Curriculum and the Professional Development 

Initiatives. 

Objective H1.1: By 2012 40% of the instructional rooms, including classrooms, labs and library 

media centers, will be equipped with 21 st Century Technology Suite that includes computing devices, 

projection systems, electronic resources and Internet connectivity. 

Benchmarks 

By 2010 15% of the instructional rooms, including classrooms, labs and library media 

centers, will be equipped with the 21 st Century Technology Suite. 





Objective H1.2: By 2012 100 % of the classrooms will be connected to a robust wired and wireless 

network that allows students and teachers to access a rich range of interactive, multimedia 

applications and instructional resources and to collaborate and communicate with a global 

community. 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 50 % of the classrooms will be connected to a robust infrastructure. 




Person responsible: Assoc. Superintendent, APD; CIO/ITD 

(See also Strand 5: Infrastructure) 

1. Define the 21st Century Technology Suite for classrooms, library media 

centers and school as a whole that supports 21 st century skills and the 

objectives of the Strategic Plan. 

2. Annually review and revise the 21st Century Technology Suite and revise 

technology standards based on emerging technology tools. 

3. In addition to the 21st Century Technology Suite, identify tools and 

applications that support: 

May 2009 36 

1 

2-3 

1-2


• Specific curricular areas such as science and mathematics. 

• ELD instruction across all ELD Pathways and in the regular 

classroom as defined in the New Lau English Language Plan 

• Multilingual plans, including language immersion programs. 

• Special Education students to maximize their mobility, social 

interactions and academic achievement through the Assistive 

Technology Center. 

• Credit recovery, accelerated learning and specific student needs to 

close the achievement gap. 

4. Develop a plan for and implement the laptops/netbooks for teachers program. 1-3 

5. Include progress towards implementing the 21 st Century Technology Suite in 

the analysis of schools’ strengths and needs, which along with the review of 

district practices, result in a co-determined combination of support. 

6. Adopt software policies, guidelines and a review procedure for the purchase of 

software and other electronic resources that address curriculum and 

instructional use, age appropriateness, professional development needs, 

technical support required, and hardware and infrastructure requirements. 

7. Apply the software guidelines when adopting textbook and supplementary 

resources that include electronic teaching and learning resources. 

8. Coordinate the deployment of the 21st Century Technology Suite and 

infrastructure upgrade with the implementation of the 21 st Century Integrated 

Science-Arts, Literacy Curriculum at the “models for success” schools and with 

other technology-related programs. (See also Strand 5 – Infrastructure) 

9. Develop APD’s research and development capabilities to monitor and 

evaluate emerging technologies and applications through “Innovation 

Classrooms” and/or through partnerships with local universities and institutions 

(See also Strand 4: Professional Development – “Innovation Classrooms”). 

10. Adopt a computer replacement policy with the goal of maintaining a ratio of not 

more than 5 students per each computing device that is less than 5 years old 

and connected to the Internet. 

GOAL I1. STUDENT RECORD KEEPING AND ASSESSMENT: Administrators and teachers will become 

proficient with and utilize available technology tools to assess student learning, to plan 

instruction that addresses individual learning needs, to manage student records and to enable 

students and parents to monitor student progress. Students will use technology tools to access 

and organize their work, to collaborate with other students, to set goals for improvement and 

become more responsible for the management of their own learning. 

Objective I1.1: By 2012 100% of the teachers will use School Loop and the data system on a 

daily basis to improve classroom management, monitor student progress, differentiate 

instruction to meet identified student needs and communicate with students and parents. 

May 2009 37 

1 

1 

2-3 

1-3 

1 

2


Benchmarks: 

By 2010 50%% of the teachers and administrators will use School Loop and the data 

system on a regular basis. 

By 2011 75% of the teachers and administrators will use School Loop and the data system 

on a regular basis. 

By 2012 100% of the teachers and administrators will use School Loop and the data system 

on a regular basis. 


Person responsible: Assoc. Superintendent, APD; Executive Director, RPA, 

CIO/ITD 

1. Plan and implement a comprehensive data, assessment and program 

management system to provide timely and accessible student information and 

diagnostic, formative and summative data to teachers, administrators, students 

and parents through the Performance Management initiative. 

2. Finalize the selection of and implement the new data system and develop a 

train the trainer program to provide professional development and support for 

all end user groups. . 

3. Research and migrate to a new student information system (SIS) that has a 

robust integrated database, and includes secure portals for teachers, parents 

and students. 

4. Develop a training and implementation plan to deploy the new SIS. 1 

5. Implement the new SIS and professional development plan for all end users. 2 

6. Develop exemplars of student work that integrate technology into the 

curriculum and demonstrate proficiency for each standard at each grade level 

and post them on the web. 

7. Roll out School Loop to all school sites, include attendance keeping and 

grade book to replace current manual systems. 

8. Establish clear expectations and develop incentives for teachers to use 

School Loop and the new data system on a regular basis. 

GOAL J1. UTILIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HOME 

AND SCHOOL: District and site administrators and teachers will use a range of technologies to 

engage all parents and students, regardless of language or economic background, in the 

students’ education, to improve home-school communications with all families and to help all 

parents and students to participate in the decision-making at the school and district level. 

Objectives J.1: By 2012 100% of the administrators and teachers will use School Loop, district 

e-mail, the web, call-out systems and other tools on a regular basis to give all parents and 

students timely, linguistically appropriate access to meaningful information and improve two-way 

communications between the home and school. 

May 2009 38 

1-3 

1-2 

1-2 

3 

1 

1-2


Benchmarks: 

By 2010 50% of the administrators and teachers will use School Loop, district e-mail, the 

web, call-out systems and other tools for communications on a regular basis. 

By 2012 75% of the administrators and teachers will use School Loop, district e-mail, the 

web, call-out systems and other tools on a regular basis. 

By 2012 100% of the administrators and teachers will use School Loop, , district e-mail, 

the web, call-out systems and other tools on a regular basis. 

Objectives J.2: By 2012 50% of families will register for School Loop to access student 

assignments, grades and attendance and to communicate with teachers and administrators. 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 25% of families will register for School Loop. 




Person responsible: 

(See also Strand 5: Infrastructure ) 

1. Implement all modules of School Loop, starting with the 20 pilot schools in 2009 1-2 

2. Develop school-wide campaigns to register parents for School Loop. 1-3 

3. Through the Family and Community Engagement and Parent Relations 

Departments promote technology training for parents, including the use of 

School Loop and the web site. 

4. Redesign the website to improve navigation for parents and other end users 

and give site staff more control over their content. 

5. Develop a template for school websites to ensure that all schools have a 

consistent look and feel and provide the same basic information for parents. 

6. Develop a support system for sites to manage their respective web sites. 1-2 

7. Incorporate survey and feedback functionality in the web site 2 

8. Explore the feasibility of virtual open houses and classroom visits. 3 

9. Explore the feasibility of having parents complete emergency cards on-line 

at home or when registering at school. 

10. Expand partnerships with community agencies, such as the Beacon 

Centers, libraries and the Housing Authority, to give parents and students 

access to computers and to training in the use of School Loop, the web 

site and other technology proficiency skills. 

11. Partner with community based organizations and local companies to 

develop take home technology and training programs. 

May 2009 39 

1-2 

1-2 

1 

1 

2 

2-3


K. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Process to Monitor: To operationalize the Master Plan for Technology the Information Technology 

Department (ITD) and the Department of Academics and Professional Development (APD) will 

prepare detailed resource project plans each year to meet the annual benchmarks in the Curriculum 

Strand. 

The Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG), is a committee composed of the CIO and 

representatives from APD, ITD, and the schools and meets on a bi-monthly basis. ITAG will be 

responsible for overall monitoring of the Technology Master Plan. The Supervisor of Instructional 

Technology will be responsible for documenting the progress of the Technology Plan, will staff 

(ITAG), and will serve as the liaison between the ITD and APD. The CIO and SOIS rep. will serve as 

the liaison between ITAG and the Superintendent’s Cabinet. 

The Supervisor of Instructional Technology will prepare quarterly reports on progress towards the 

Curriculum objectives and benchmarks for ITAG. On behalf of the ITAG, the Supervisor of 

Instructional Technology will submit semi-annual reports to Associate Superintendent of APD, the 

CIO of ITD, and the Executive Director of Research, Planning and Accountability (RPA). Annual 

reports will be submitted to the Superintendent’s Cabinet and to the Board of Education with 

recommendations for each year’s annual implementation plan. 

(See next page) 

May 2009 40


Evaluation Instrument(s) & Data To Be Collected Frequency of Collection 

District and Site Balanced Score Cards 

TBD 

• District and site measures of progress towards 

BSC objectives 

California School Technology Survey Student to Annually 

computer ratios. 

• Percentage of teachers' classroom use of 

technology 

• Percentage of student use of technology 

• Where students use technology 

Automated Technology Audit & Inventory: Ongoing 

• Status and use of all networked technology 

EdTechProfile Assessment 

Annually 

• Teacher personal use for classroom management 

and instruction 

• Teacher progress towards CCTC Technology 

Standards 9 and 16. 

• Teacher assignments requiring student use of 

technology 

Classroom Observations 

TBD 

• Teacher use of technology for instruction 

• Site implementation of 21 st Century Curriculum 

School Loop Use Statistics 

• Teacher postings 

• Teacher course web sites 

• Student and family registrations and logons 

Technology installation logs 

Deployment of the 21st Century Technology Suite 

Student Work Products 

• Samples of assignments and student portfolios 

from School Loop and Sharepoint “My Sites” 

STAR and CAHSEE Tests 

• Summative student data 

Benchmark Assessments 

• Formative student data 

Annual Resource Project Plans 

• Technology Plan implementation 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Annually 

Annually 

5 times a year. 

Annually 

May 2009 41


STRAND 4 – PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

A 1. CURRENT TECHNOLOGY PROFICIENCY AND INTEGRATION SKILLS AND 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS 

Teacher Technology Proficiency Skills and Use - EdTechProfile Findings: 21 As discussed in 

Strand 3, over 70% of the teachers reported they were at an Intermediate or Proficient level for 

technology proficiency, and slightly fewer reported using technology for instructional purposes on a 

regular basis, such as preparing materials, managing the classroom, finding resources for lesson 

plans and communicating with colleagues. 

Administrators Technology Proficiency Skills and Use - EdTechProfile Findings: The 102 

administrators taking the EdTechProfile in January 2009 reported a slightly higher level of proficiency 

skills than teachers in general computer knowledge and e-mail skills (92% and 90% respectively) and 

reported the same level of proficiency with the Internet (73%). However, less than 10% of the 

administrators responded to the survey questions addressing technology use, which were related to 

classroom use. The number of respondents was too small to draw any valid conclusions. 

Teacher Use of Technology in the Classroom – Standard 9 22 While the teachers reported a 

relatively high technology skills level and use of technology for personal use and preparation of 

21 

Although 1,890 teachers took the EdTechProfile survey in January 2009, not every teacher responded to 

each question. 

22 

From the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Teaching Standards. 

May 2009 42


instructional materials, teachers reported a lower proficiency in the use of technology in the 

classroom as measured by Standard 9 of the CCTC Teaching Standards (See Chart below). 

49% of the teachers reported being intermediate to proficient in the areas of use of technology to 

create print materials while 54% reported the same levels of proficiency with online collaborations. 

Less than 25% of the teachers reported the same levels of proficiency for standards that addressed 

integration of technology to address students academic needs, policies and laws pertaining to 

technology use, and the use of electronic data tools. 

Question Number: 

1. Alignment of technology resources with lesson content 

2. Knowledge of student level of technology use and academic accomplishments 

3. Knowledge of research and best practices in technology in education 

4. Record management with technology 

5. Communication through technology generated printed media 

6. Online collaboration 

7. Evaluation and selection of technological resources 

8. Knowledge of school and district educational technological resources policies 

9. Use of educational technological resource to address student learning needs 

10. Evaluation and selection of educational software 

11. Use of electronic research tools and assessment of data gathered 

12. Knowledge of state and federal laws for uses of computer-based technologies 

13. Knowledge of computer and network security and shared resource management 

14. Knowledge of Acceptable Use Policies, safety and health issues. 

Teacher Use of Technology to Support Student Learning – EdTechProfile: A similar patter 

emerged in the responses to the CCTC standards 16a through 16g that addressed how technology 

May 2009 43


was used in instruction. 45% said they were at an intermediate to proficient level in using available 

technology. However that dropped to 17% to 33% who said they were at the same level in aligning 

technology with the curriculum, developing information and problem solving skills, enhancing learning 

opportunities or using data to assess and adjust instruction 

Questions Number: 

1. Communications using a variety of electronic media 

2. Communication with other professionals 

3. Alignment of technology enhanced lessons with the curriculum 

4. Use of available technological resources 

5. Development of information literacy skills 

6. Development of problem solving skills 

7. Creation of technology-enhanced learning opportunities 

8. Creation of effective learning environments 

9. Use of data to assess and communicate student learning 

10. Evaluation, monitoring and adjustment of technology enhanced instruction 

Teachers Giving Assignment that Require Students to Use Technology – EdTechProfile: An 

important measure of technology integration into classroom instruction is the frequency with which 

teachers actually gave assignments that required students to use technology. Compared to the 

percent of teachers who reported a relatively high level of proficiency with and use of the technology 

to prepare instructional materials, only 4% to 20% teachers reported making assignments at least 

once a week that require students to use technology. 

When they did make assignments, teachers reported using the technology more frequently for word 

processing and practice. Between 4% and 10% reported using technology at least once a week for 

May 2009 44


reports and projects, demonstrations and simulation, correspondence outside the classroom and 

problem solving. 37%-69% reported never using technology for these same purposes. The vast 

majority reported using it once a month or less, probably for special projects, although that is not an 

option on the ETP. (See chart below) 

The pattern of making assignments requiring students to use technology here is consistent with the 

data on the measures of Standards 9 and 16 cited above. While the lack of access to a reliable suite 

of technology tools is a significant factor in these findings, the data also reinforce the conclusion that 

the greatest professional development need is the integration of technology into classroom instruction 

to improve academic achievement. In “Professional Development Needs” section of the 

EdTechProfile 73% of the teachers concluded that their area of greatest need was the integration of 

technology into the curriculum, compared to 27% who said the priority was basic computer skills 

training. 

A 2. STRATEGIC PLAN AND PROFESSIONAL Development Needs 

As with Strand 3: Curriculum, the Professional Development Strand is informed by more than 

the current uses of technology by teachers or by their self-identified needs. Rather it is the 

Strategic Plan that drives professional development and the integration of technology into 

teaching and learning over the next three years. This section supplements the discussion of 

the Strategic Plan in Strand 3 and focuses on the Equity- Centered Professional Learning 

Initiative and its implications for the Technology Master Plan. 

Equity-Centered Professional Learning Initiative: The Strategic Plan calls for the implementation 

of an Equity-Centered Professional Learning Initiative as the key to implementing the technology 

embedded 21 st century integrated curriculum and creating the necessary conditions and structures 

within the district: 

May 2009 45


Creating and sustaining professional learning communities is essential to the pursuit of equity 

in our classrooms, our schools and our district. Board members, staff, students, families and 

our partners need to ask hard questions, look honestly at inequitable practices and policies, 

hold ourselves accountable like we would with those we care most about, and embrace the 

uncertainties and tensions inevitably involve in equity-centered change. This initiative will 

increase equity-centered conditions and structure within SFUSD so that we can deliberately 

and explicitly challenge all forms of inequity, learn from each other and celebrate our 

accomplishments. 

The goals and objectives for the Professional Learning Initiative are: 

1. Increasing the achievement of all groups of students and dramatically accelerate the 

achievement of targeted groups of students (African American, English Language Learners, 

Latino, Pacific Islanders, Samoan and Special Education students). 

2. Create equity-centered professional learning communities, networks and communities of 

practice within and across schools and central office to anchor the discussion, learning, and 

actions related to the District Matrix analysis and school improvement plan. 

3. Create a safe, affirming and enriched environment for participatory and inclusive learning for 

every group of students. 

4. Develop and support a school environment that ensures safe access to environmentally 

sound, high quality schools with the technological infrastructure to reduce the digital divide. 23 

Professional Development Framework Planning: In January the district and long-term partner, 

the San Francisco Education Fund, convened the three-day Professional Development Framework 

Design Convening sessions to: 24 

• Create a framework that supports the goals and objectives of the strategic plan. 

• Develop recommendations for the design and implementation of that framework. 

• Identify the teams(s) and resources needed to move this work forward. 

• Develop the relationships among key stakeholders. 

Equity-Centered Professional Learning Communities: Central to the Equity-Centered 

Professional Learning Initiative is the creation of sustainable equity-centered professional learning 

communities that engage district leadership, principals and teachers in a collaborative process of codesigning 

solutions and holding one another accountable for the elimination of inequitable practices 

and policies. While the Equity-Centered Professional Learning Initiative has just embarked on the 

design process, the district has used collaborations to build leadership and accountability. Some 

current efforts include: 

• Middle School Teachers Leadership Initiative (MSTLI): MSTLI was initiated in 2006, 

starting with teacher leaders in mathematics and languages arts. By 2008-09, there are 

leadership teams for mathematics, language arts, science, history/social science, and 

physical education. Teachers who are part of the MSTLI participate in 

• regular professional development and planning sessions and take on leadership 

functions in their content areas for both the district and their respective sites. 

23 “Beyond the Talk: Taking Action to Education Every Child Now,” p.9 

24 These five principles reflect the findings of the “Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on 

Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad.” by Darling-Hammond et al. National Staff Development Council, 

February 2009. 

May 2009 46


• Instructional Reform Facilitators: Formed in 2000 to support the STAR and Dream 

schools, the Instructional Reform Facilitators (IRFs) support the reform efforts at individual 

schools. While the focus and scope of responsibility has changed over time and varies from 

site-to-site, the IRFs represent an eight year effort to use a professional learning community 

to build leadership. 

• Interactive Whiteboards: Starting in 2007-08, the CTE Department and individual schools 

began acquiring interactive whiteboards for approximately forty Academy and other 

classroom teachers. Teachers participate in an online tutorial and complete a full day 

professional development session prior to receiving the whiteboards. Some then participate 

in monthly cohort meetings to collaborate on creative lesson plans that require students to 

interact with the whiteboards and share best practices supported by a technology specialist 

and expertise from the vendor. 

CONCLUSIONS: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS 

Integrating Technology Across the Curriculum: While professional development over the 

next three years must build teachers’ and administrators’ proficiency with the technology 

proficiency, the greatest need is to ensure that technology is integrated across the curriculum 

and supports the 21 st Century Learning skils. The model below defines how the term 

“curriculum technology integration” is used in this plan. 25 

25 Based on the model presented in the “Instructional Technology Plan,” Los Angeles Unified School District, 2002 revision, the San 

Francisco “21 st Century Curriculum Convening” document (200*, and the Partnership for 21 st Century (http://www.21stcenturyskills.org. 

May 2009 47


Language Arts 

Mathematics 

Science 

History/ 

Social Science 

Languages 

Fine Arts 

Health & PE 

Academic 

Competency 

Figure 14 

Curriculum/ 


Integration 


Proficiency Skills 

Basic operations & concepts 

Ethical issues 

Technology productivity tools 

Technology communications tools 

Technology research tools 

Technology problem-solving and 

decision-making tools 

21 st Century 

Skills 

May 2009 48 

Multilingual/Cross-cultural 

Competency 

Technological Literacy 

Communication Skills 

Aesthetic Sensibility 

Critical & Creative 

Thinking, 

Reasoning, and Solution 

Seeking 

Social, Environmental, & 

Civic Responsibility 

Strength of Character


Integrate Technology into the Initiatives Planning Processes: While the data from the 

EdTechProfile and interviews with teachers all point to the need for professional development to 

support the integration of technology across all content areas, the Strategic Plan creates a more 

expansive statement of need. The Strategic Plan calls for a complete re-design of a Pre-K through 

grade 12 integrated 21 st century curriculum supported by powerful technology tools. The Equity 

Centered Professional Learning Initiative is designed to implement that curriculum and to bring about 

the essential changes in the culture and classroom environment. A focus on the integration of 

technology to support these ends must permeate the planning and implementation of the Equity- 

Centered Professional Learning Initiative. 

Develop the Technology Platforms: The district must also develop the technology platform to 

support the new data and communications systems that are vital to the use of data in instructional 

planning, foster collaborations among the equity-centered professional learning communities, and 

provide access to best practices and expertise from the entire educational community. 

New Professional Development Model to Support Technology: To implement the Strategic Plan 

on a district-side scale, the district must ultimately be able to provide intensive, ongoing professional 

development and support for 3,342 teachers and 297 administrators as they implement the 21 st 

century curriculum and learn how to make technology an integral part of teaching and learning. 

Professional 

Development 

Providers 

• Traditional Technology Support Model: In interviews, stakeholders’ initial solution to this 

challenge was to re-establish full time technology teachers or other staff (e.g., Curriculum 

Technology Integrators) at each school (See Figure 13 below). The model has three 

weaknesses. The model tends to keep technology “separate from” the curriculum and 

professional development in the core content areas. Technology tends to be treated as a 

“subject” unrelated to other content areas and not relevant to what is measured in high stakes 

state testing. Technology is frequently a relatively low priority. In the past, when schools 

faced funding cuts, “low priority” positions were eliminated. In the process most technology 

support positions were eliminated. Lastly, in the current funding climate, the district would be 

hard pressed to set aside the approximately $8 million dollars to fund new permanent full time 

technology integration positions for each school. 

Figure 15: Traditional Model for Technology Support 

N.B. Listed positions are examples only. 

May 2009 49


• Develop Capacity at the Site and District Levels: (See Figure 14 below.) 

o Foster Effective Technology Partnerships: The district has formed strategic 

partnerships to bring technology expertise and best practices to the development of the 

21 st Century Curriculum and the Equity-Centered Professional Learning Initiatives. These 

partners can work side by side with district and site leadership to plan and implement 

technology embedded curriculum and professional development that support 21 st 

Century learning for students and help teachers learn how to integrate technology into a 

21 st Century Curriculum. These partnerships can not only provide critical professional 

development but also support programs that serve as models for best practices, such as 

Digital Storytelling. 

o Develop Capacity of Existing Leadership: Curriculum and Professional 

Development Leaders as Technology Integration Specialists: The district is 

investing in a significant number of professional and curriculum development facilitators, 

coaches and leaders at both the district and site levels to support the three initiatives. 

This leadership includes site principals; Balanced Score Card Liaisons; Instructional 

Reform Facilitators (IRFs); librarians, teachers in the MSTLI; BTSA coaches; multilingual, 

special education and English Learners support staff; Student Success Teams; and 

district staff (TSAs) responsible for professional and curriculum development in the core 

curricular areas. 

One approach would be intensive professional development for existing leadership 

through collaborations with four new technology integration specialists (one per content 

area) to co-design and implement technology embedded curriculum and professional 

development. This approach would enable the leadership to learn the process of 

technology integration and develop proficiency with the tools while delivering critical 

ongoing professional development and teacher support in the content areas or special 

programs. The benefits of this model are five-fold: 

1. Technology integration would be an integral part of the design and implementation of 

the Equity-Centered Professional Learning Community Initiative. 

2. Technology would be directly connected to teaching practices. 

3. With technology embedded in ongoing professional development demands on 

teachers’ time for “technology training” would decrease. 

4. Technology expertise would be spread among a large cadre of curriculum and 

content leaders, making the use of technology less vulnerable to the vagaries of 

funding or changes in staffing. 

5. While this collaborative approach would require an upfront cost, the long-term 

outcome would be a cadre of professionals with expertise in both the content or 

program areas and technology integration on a scale that could give all teachers the 

requisite support as the district implements the Strategic Plan. 

May 2009 50


Professional 

Development 

Providers 

Figure 16: Building Capacity for Site and District Curriculum and Professional 

Development Leaders 

N.B. Listed positions are examples only. 

It will be particularly important to focus on site leadership to bring the level of support 

closest to the teacher. Principal leadership is one of the most critical factors in 

technology adoption at a school. Each site has a half time to full time librarian, who 

frequently functions at the technology/media resource teacher. There are IRFs at 

Dream and Star schools to support site reform efforts. With the 21 st Century 

Curriculum Initiative, principals need professional development to become the 

leaders in technology integration. Librarians and IRFs must now be able to support 

teachers as they implement a 21 st century curriculum in which technology is 

embedded. 

• Interim Technology Integration Support: While existing curriculum and professional 

development leadership gain the necessary expertise to support a technology 

embedded curriculum, there will continue to be a need for support for classroom 

teachers. Three strategies are proposed, although they are not mutually exclusive. A 

teacher may become a site technology support person by participating in one of the 

following programs: 

o Teacher Technology Leaders: Each site would identify at least one Teacher 

Technology Leader who would receive a stipend or a release period. The person 

would serve as a support person for technology integration at the site and serve as 

the liaison between the school and the APD and ITD. Teacher Leaders would 

participate in monthly cohort meetings and professional development sessions lead 

by the Supervisor of Instructional Technology. 

o Innovation Classroom Teachers: The plan also calls for the establishment of 

“Innovation Classrooms” throughout the district to (a) model innovative uses of 

technology in instruction and best practices for schools as they design and 

implement their 21 st Century curriculum and (b) develop a pool of technology 

integration specialists with direct, daily connection to classroom practice who can 

work with other teachers at their sites. Through a competitive process, teachers and 

their principals would apply to become an “Innovation Classroom” teacher. The 

classroom would be equipped with the 21 st Century Technology Suite, including 

May 2009 51


appropriate Internet access. The Supervisor of Instructional Technology or another 

district specialist, would coordinate regular cohort meetings to develop, implement 

and assess the effectiveness of technology embedded lessons and provide feedback 

to the district. Innovation Classrooms would also serve as sites for professional 

development activities, such as classroom observations. 

B. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS, BENCHMARKS, STRATEGIES AND 

TIMELINE 

GOAL #B.1. - STAFF TECHNOLOGY PROFICIENCY: All teachers, curriculum and professional 

development specialists, librarians/media specialists, coaches, paraprofessionals and 

administrators will become personally proficient in the use of the 21 st Century Technology Suite, 

to include personal computer productivity tools and the effective use of Internet tools and 

resources. All staff will achieve at least an Intermediate Level of Personal Proficiency as 

defined by the EdTechProfile. 

Objective B1.1: By 2012 all district and site professional and curriculum development 

leadership will achieve Technology Skills Proficiency level on EdTechProfile from an estimated 

baseline of 29% in 2009. 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 40% of professional and curriculum development leadership will be at the 

Technology Skills Proficiency level. 





Objective B1.2: By 2012 60% of classroom teachers and site administrators will achieve a 

Technology Skills Proficiency level on the EdTechProfile from an estimated baseline of 29%. 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 35% of teachers and site administrators will be at the Technology Skills 

Proficiency level. 






Person responsible: Associate Superintendent APD, CIO/ITD, SOIS 

1. Adopt Technology Proficiency Standards for teachers and administrators 1 

2. Adopt Technology Proficiency Standards for paraprofessionals 1 

3. Ensure that teachers have access to the 21 st Century Technology Suite in the 1-3 

May 2009 52


classroom. 

4. Coordinate technology professional development with the deployment of new 

technology tools, starting with the electronic whiteboards, Digital Story Telling, and 

the Integrated Science, Arts, Literacy Curriculum initiative. 

5. Develop a support system and incentives for a cadre of one or more technology lead 

teachers at each school who can provide site technology proficiency support. 

6. Post technology how-to’s and video tutorials on the web to give teachers and 

instructors just-in-time, any time technology skills support. (See also Goal 2) 

GOAL #B.2. – ALIGNING TECHNOLOGY WITH THE 21ST CENTURY CURRICULUM INITIATIVE: All 

teachers will implement a 21 st century curriculum in which powerful technology tools are 

transparent and will use technology to create safe, engaging and authentic learning 

environments in which students are empowered to succeed as defined in the Strategic Plan. 

Objective B2.1: By 2012 all district and site professional and curriculum development 

leadership will be proficient in the integration of the 21 st Century Technology Suite in a 21 st 

Century Curriculum up from an estimated 7% in 2009. 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 25% of professional and curriculum development leadership will be proficient. 



Objective B2.2: By 2012 50% of classroom teachers and site administrators will be proficient in 

the integration of the 21 st Century Technology Suite in a 21 st Century Curriculum up from an 

estimated 7% in 2009. 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 10% of the classroom teachers and site administrators will be proficient. 



May 2009 53 

1-3 

1-3 

2-3



Person responsible: Associate Superintendent APD, CIO/ITD, SOIS 

1. Ensure that the technology is integral to the planning and implementation of the 

Equity-Centered Professional Development Initiative by tapping into the technology 

expertise of the district and its partners. 

2. Develop a three year “technology integration” professional development plan for the 

curriculum and instructional leaders at the district and site levels, including BSC 

Facilitators, Student Success Teams; librarians, teacher leaders, IRFS; BTSA 

Coaches; EL, special education and GATES support staff; and district staff 

responsible for professional and curriculum development in the core curricular areas 

and special programs. 

3. Develop a three year “technology integration” professional development plan for 

principals. 

4. Identify four elementary and secondary technology integration specialists to 

work with the professional development and content leaders. 

5. Implement the three-year “technology integration” plan for site and district 

professional and curriculum development staff to include the collaboration 

among technology integration specialists and professional development staff in 

the planning and implementation of the Equity Centered Professional 

Development Initiative. 

6. Develop a plan and application process for and phase in a cohort of 10-20 

Innovation Classroom Teachers each year who will pilot best practices, develop 

model lessons and support technology at their respective sites. 

7. Develop job descriptions for, a selection process, a support system and 

incentives (stipends and/or release time) to recruit a cadre of one or more 

Technology Teacher Leaders at each school who will serve as liaison with the 

district and support technology at their respective sites. (See also Goal 1) 

8. Include ongoing, technology embedded professional development for all teachers on 

the effective use of: 

a. Classroom computers in small group collaborative instruction, especially 

at the secondary levels with short, fixed class periods. 

b. Technology to support differentiated instruction and ELD strategies. 

9. Utilize online collaboration tools, such as Sharepoint and School Loop, to foster 

professional learning communities. 

10. Develop individualized professional development plans for teachers and 

administrators, based on their current technology proficiency skills and their 

proficiency at integrating technology into a 21 st century curriculum. 

11. Develop a differentiated menu of professional development to enable teachers 

and administrators to accelerate progress towards their individual plan goals. 

12. Post online technology-embedded lessons, best practices and classroom videos 

developed by the Technology Teacher Leaders, Innovative Classroom Teachers 

May 2009 54 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2-3 

1-3 

1-3 

1-3 

1-3 

1 

2-3


and the 21 st Century Integrated Curriculum teachers. 

13. Use classroom based network cameras to connect, interact, and observe 

teachers’ and students’ use of technology integration. 

Goal #B3 – DEVELOPING LITERACY SKILLS, ETHICAL AND SAFE USE OF TECHNOLOGY: All teachers 

and staff will understand and develop school environments in which students are able to 

demonstrate information and literacy skills and safe and ethical use of technology, including the 

Internet. 

Objective B3.1: By 2012 all teachers and staff will demonstrate an understanding of the 

district’s acceptable use policies that will include references to the Research and Information 

Fluency and the Digital Citizenship standards as defined by International Society for Technology 

in Education (ISTE) up from 16% in 2009 

Benchmarks 

By 2010 30% of the teachers and staff will demonstrate an understanding. 


By 2012 all teachers and staff will demonstrate an understanding. 

Objective B3.2: By 2012 all teachers and staff will clearly communicate the district 

requirements in the acceptable use policies and the expectations for ethical and safe use of 

technology and implement lessons that allow students to demonstrate information and literacy 

skills and safe and ethical use of technology, including the Internet up from 10% in 2009. 

Benchmarks: 



By 2012 all teachers and staff will demonstrate an understanding. 


Person responsible: Associate Superintendent APD, CIO 

1. Emphasize Research and Information Fluency and Digital Citizenship standards 

in the Equity Centered Professional Learning Communities Initiative. 

2. Develop and post on-line the grade level student and teacher profiles that illustrate 

the Research and Information Fluency and Digital Citizenship standards. 

3. Post information literacy and ethical and safe use of technology information in all 

labs and classrooms. 

4. Make iSafe or other online cyber-safety curriculum available to teachers for 

model lessons and student activities. 

5. Review AUPs for teachers for compliance with ISTE standards on Research and 

Information Fluency and Digital Citizenship 

May 2009 55 

2-3


GOAL #B4: USE OF DATA TO IMPROVE INSTRUCTION: All teachers will be proficient in the analysis 

of assessment data and student work and collaborate with other members of their professional 

learning communities to plan instruction that addresses identified individual student needs, 

monitor student progress and adjust instruction in an ongoing cycle of inquiry. 

Objective B4.1: By 2012 100% of teachers will regularly use classroom management tools and 

100% of teachers and administrators will use student achievement data and student work to 

collaborate around student learning up from 15% in 2009. 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 25% of the teachers will regularly use classroom management tools and 25% of 

teachers and administrators will use student achievement data. 

By 2011 65% of the teachers will regularly use classroom management tools and 65% of 

teachers and administrators will use student achievement data. 

By 2012 100% of the teachers will regularly use classroom management tools and 100% 

of teachers and administrators will use student achievement data. 


Person responsible: Executive Director, RPA, Associate Superintendent APD, CIO 

1. Identify and implement a more robust data system to replace Cruncher and 

OARS. 

2. Train data trainers in the use of the new data system. 1 

3. Develop and implement a training program for all teachers and administrators to 

use the new data system. 

4. Expand the use of standardized protocols and a system of support for teachers’ 

and administrators’ examination of assessment data and student work for 

instructional planning (for ex, the Middle School Teacher Leadership Initiative.) 

5. Evaluate and select a new student information system. 1 

6. Design a training program for all staff for the new student information system. 1 

7. Implement the training program for all staff in the use of the new student 

information system. 

8. Create an assessment and data management system to support the 

administration of state and benchmark assessments, in-depth analyses of that 

data and distribution of data, to include diagnostic, formative/benchmark and 

summative data. 

9. Continue to utilize protocols and a system of support for teachers’ and 

administrators’ examination of assessment data and student work. 

10. Develop and post on-line exemplars for student work for all standards grades 

Pre-K through 12 to support assessment of student work. 

11. Evaluate technology tools for the program management system to monitor the 

departments’ BSCs. 

May 2009 56 

1 

1-2 

1-3 

2 

1-2 

1-3 

2-3 

1


GOAL #B5 – USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE TWO-WAY HOME-SCHOOL COMMUNICATIONS: All 

teachers and administrators will use the available two-way communications tools to improve 

communications between school and the home and to engage students and their families in the 

education of the students. 

Objective B5.1: By 2012 all staff will use e-mail and School Loop regularly to communicate 

regularly with and engage students and their families, up from 23% who used e-mail in 2009. 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 50% of the teachers and administrators will use e-mail and School Loop to 

communicate with students and families. 





Objective B5.2: By 2012 all schools will have an up-to-date web site with a common baseline of 

information that is easily accessible by students and parents. 

Benchmarks: 

By 2010 25% of the schools will have an up-to-date web site. 



. 


Person responsible: Associate Superintendent APD, CIO 

1. Provide training to all school staff in the use of all of School Loop functions. 1 

2. Identify and provide ongoing support for a cadre of School Loop support liaisons 

at each site 

3. Monitor staff use of School Loop. 1-3 

4. Complete the template and guidelines for site web sites using Sharepoint and 

provide professional development for site web liaisons in its use. 

5. Encourage each school to maintain up-to-date information on its web site. 1-2 

6. Identify a cadre of staff who will serve as web administrators at each site to 

ensure school information is up-to-date and to assist staff members to post 

information. 

7. Provide ongoing support for the site web administrators. 1-3 

8. Require all SFUSD employees to use district email to communicate with parents 

and students. 

May 2009 57 

1-3 

1 

1 

1


VI. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 



prepare detailed resource project plans each year to meet the annual benchmarks in the 

Professional Development Strand. 

The Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG), is a committee composed of the CIO and 



Technology will be responsible for documenting the progress of the Technology Plan, will staff (ITAG) 

and serve as the liaison between the ITD and APD. The CIO will serve as the liaison between ITAG 

and the Superintendent’s Cabinet. 

The Supervisor of Instructional Technology will prepare quarterly reports on progress towards 

the Professional Development objectives and benchmarks for ITAG. On behalf of the ITAG, the 

Supervisor of Instructional Technology will submit semi-annual reports to Associate 

Superintendent of APD, the CIO of ITD, and the Executive Director of Research, Planning and 

Accountability (RPA). Annual reports will be submitted to the Superintendent’s Cabinet and to 

the Board of Education with recommendations for each year’s annual implementation plan. 



TBD 

• District and site measures of progress towards BSC 

objectives 


Annually 

• Percent of teachers using e-mail to communicate with 

students and parents. 

School Loop Use Statistics 

Quarterly 

• Teacher postings 

• Teacher course web sites 

• Parent log-ons 

Meetings sign-in sheets, agendas, handouts and work Quarterly 

products 

• Professional Development Participation 

Classroom Observations Logs 

TBD 

• Teacher use of technology for instruction 

• Teacher implementation of best practices 

Web Use 

Quarterly 

• Number of site hits 

• Monitoring school and district websites. 

• Feedback from site web administrators. 

May 2009 58


STRAND 5 – INFRASTRUCTURE, HARDWARE, TECHNICAL SUPPORT 

AND SOFTWARE 

A. EXISTING HARDWARE, INTERNET ACCESS, ELECTRONIC RESOURCES AND 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT 

Existing Computer Access: The district has deployed 11,731 instructional computers, of 

which 10,268 or 88% are connected to the Internet. Of these the County 26 has 1,244 

computers for 689 students, and all but those at the Youth Guidance Center are connected to 

the Internet. The overall student to computer ratio is 4.2 but rises to 5.5 to 1 for computers with 

Internet connections. However, 6,740 of these computers or 57% are over 4 years of age, and 

the student to computer ratio increases to 8.3 to 1 for computers that are less than five years of 

age. The largest concentration of old computers is at the middle schools although elementary 

schools have the lowest concentration of computers overall. While all students have access to 

these instructional computers, including Special Education, GATE and English Language 

Learners, there are significant differences in the level of access among school levels and 

between schools. (See Strand 3: Curriculum for more detail.) 

(For a school-by-school breakdown see Appendix A: “Access to Technology – Findings from the 

California Technology Survey Spring 2008”) 

Operating Platform and Standards: The district has standardized on the HP PC and on the 

Windows operating system. However, schools may order Apple computers, and approximately 

40% of the schools now have Apple computers. This will become a critical issue when the 

district moves to Active Directory in 2009-2010. 

Access to Other Hardware: Starting in 2007-08 the district began introducing integrated, 

interactive whiteboards for Academy and other classroom teachers using a combination of Career 

Technical Education (CTE), K-12 Voucher and site funds. There are approximately 40 interactive 

whiteboards in five middle schools and nine high schools at this time. However, since there is limited 

wireless access in these schools, the whiteboards have required extensive wiring that many of the 

schools hadn’t anticipated when acquiring the technology. 

The district has distributed probe ware over the last three years for middle and high school science 

instruction. In addition some classrooms are equipped with LCD projectors and/or ELMO document 

projectors. The goal is to have at least one presentation unit in each classroom, library/media center 

and lab. 

The Special Education Department provides a range of assistive technology tools, including 

AlphaSmart Key Boards, Step-by-Step handheld communications tools, Boardmaker alternative 

communications tools, FM radio system and “sound toteables” to help focus student attention on 

instruction. Special Education has established an Assistive Technology Center at Aptos Middle 

School to house assistive technology devices provide workshops to train teachers in the use of these 

assistive technology devices as well as related software. 

26 There were only 2 instructional computers reported for the County Special Education Department, which does not reflect all the high 

technology assistive technologies provided for the students with both mild and sever impairments. 

May 2009 59


Each of the Academy programs employs the technology tools used in the respective 

professions. For example, the AoIT programs at Galileo and Lincoln have multi-media 

computer labs and video production facilities. The Biotechnology Academies use sophisticated 

computer prototyping software to create three-dimensional models of proteins. Students in the 

Teacher Academies learn how to integrate technology into the curriculum through participation 

in the Digital Story Telling Project, a project-based curriculum that combines digital arts with 

traditional research, writing and presentation skills. (See Strand 3: Curriculum for more detail.) 

While schools and departments have acquired other technologies in the past, there has been little 

coordination, and there is no comprehensive inventory of the technology available in the classrooms 

and the labs to support instruction. The IT Department is now conducting an on-site audit of 

technology in the schools, which will provide more accurate statistics than the data available from the 

self-reporting California Technology Survey. The audit is expected to be completed in 2009. 

Telephones: The telephone system was purchased in 1989 and is now obsolete. Most schools are 

on Intertel systems but two are on Simplex, one on Panasonic and two are on CISCO VoIP. The 

telephones are on a Centrex service. 

Existing Internet Access: Because the district also serves as the County Office of Education, the 

district is a hub on the K-12 High Speed Network, which serves as the district connection to the 

Internet. The connection has been recently upgraded to one gig. The district is the ISP not only for 

district schools, but also for the charter and non-public schools in San Francisco. 

Infrastructure: In April 2009 the district will move the network servers from an inadequate rented 

facility to a temperature controlled, secure facility in district headquarters. 

According to the 2008 California Technology Survey 88% of the instructional computers and all of the 

administrative computers have a broadband connection to the Internet. Forty-one of the schools 

report some level of wireless connectivity. Currently the district wide area network (WAN) bandwidth 

ranges from 1.5 mg for elementary schools to 10 mg to high schools and district facilities. The is a 10 

mg opteman connection to the Child Development Center. Facilities had built a separate WAN, but it 

has now migrated to the District WAN for a savings of $300,000 a year. 

However, the local area networks (LANS) at the schools present the biggest hurdle to full 

connectivity. The architecture at many sites still utilizes hubs, not servers, and most of the schools’ 

network use exceeds their bandwidth limits. Three years ago the district upgraded 69 “tier two” 

schools eligible for e-rate discounts on internal telecommunications services to Voice over Internet 

Protocol (VoIP), but while the routers, switches and central servers were installed, the upgrade did 

not include cabling or the acquisition of the VoIP phones. There has been no funding for LAN 

upgrades at the non-e-rate schools. However, the routers and switches that were installed at the erate 

schools can power wireless access points and phones and three years of age, can now be used 

at non-tier two schools. 

Existing Electrical Wiring: Approximately 50% of the schools were re-wired from 2006 – 2009 with 

funding from an earlier local bond measure. 

Existing Electronic Resources: The district has acquired district licenses for the following software 

for teacher and student use: (See Strand 3: Curriculum for more details.) 

Chart 17: Software and On-Line Resources Licensed by the District 

May 2009 60


Accessible by PC and Mac Computers: 

Microsoft Office 

Word 

Excel 

Access 

PowerPoint 

Microsoft SharePoint Administrators/teachers 

E-mail 

School Loop 20 pilots schools spring 2009 

All schools Fall 2009 

Textbook Publishers’ Electronic Resources 

Discover Streaming Video 

TeachingBooks.net Teachers 

Wilson’s Web Librarians 

Inspiration Middle/High Schools 

Newsbank Middle/High Schools 

Brain POP Licensed on per site basis 

netTrekker High Schools 

Ferguson’s Career High Schools 

AP Images 

Achieve 3000 Licensed on per site basis 

Education Programs for Gifted Youth (EPGY) Licensed on per site basis 

Renzulli Learning System Licensed on per site basis 

Accessible by PC Computers Only 

Adobe Digital School Collection 

Premier Elements 4 

Photo Shop Elements 6 

Middle/High Schools 

Acrobate 8 Professional 

Contribute CS3 web tool 

Accessible by MAC Computers Only 

iLife Suite Middle/High Schools 

iPhoto 

iMovie 

Garage Band 

iWeb content management tool 

With funding from the 2008 Parcel Tax, the District is now piloting Horizon, a new point of sale 

software system at 12 schools with a full rollout scheduled for 2009-2010. It is anticipated that the 

system will better capture Free and Reduced Lunch (FRLN) data to increase revenue from a number 

of categorical programs and e-rate. telecommunications discounts 

Currently the district does not have a review policy or standards for the acquisition of software and 

other electronic resources, nor is there a complete inventory of what resources have been purchased 

or are being used at the schools. In the absence of coordination, schools have frequently acquired 

software licenses that were not supported by the existing hardware and network infrastructure. The 

IT Department is working with the newly hired Supervisor of Instructional Technology in APD to 

develop these policies and standards and to have a review process involving APD and IT prior to the 

purchase of software and other electronic resources. 

May 2009 61


Existing Technical Support: The IT Department is responsible for the management and support of 

the technology architecture, hardware, software and the technology support systems throughout the 

district and the County Office of Education. In 2008-09 the IT Department re-organized and filled 

some critical positions: 

• 7 FTE Desktop Support technicians who serve district-wide 

• 6 FTE Desktop support technicians who serve at high schools 

• 2 FTE Core Network Engineers 

• 1 FTE Distributed Network Engineer 

• 1 FTE Telecom Engineer 

• Contract Telecom services for moves, adds and changes for move 

• 3 Trainers to support School Loop and develop online tutorials. 

In addition all hardware purchases and donations, including computers, are processed centrally at 

the Technology Resource Center, currently housed at International High School. The Center will 

enable the district to better monitor assets and represents a shift in the technical support strategies. 

However, there is a need for a donated computer policy.(See “B. Needed Technical Support” below) 

As discussed above the IT Department also maintains the Technology Resources Center (TRC) 

staffed by one desktop technician. The goals is to re-organize the TRC to be the processing center 

for all hardware purchased by the district and individual schools as well as donated computers. The 

TRC 

The California Technology Survey 2008 indicates that seven other schools retained a part-time to fulltime 

classified technician, fourteen had a full-time certificated staff and 1 a part-time certificated staff 

to support technology at their schools in 2008. 

B. HARDWARE, INTERNET ACCESS, ELECTRONIC RESOURCES AND TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT NEEDED TO SUPPORT CURRICULUM AND PROFESSIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

Increasing Student and Teacher Access to Technology - Beyond the Student to 

Computer Ratio: The Technology Plan calls for the deployment over time of a 21 st Century 

Technology Suite to every classroom in the district. This goal will not only bring the overall 

student to computer ratio down to a minimum of five to one, but it will give all students access to 

the a standard set of tools that support 21century learning and enable curriculum development 

and comprehensive professional development built around a common set of tools. To 

accomplish the Technology Plan calls for:: 

• Finalizing the definition of the 21 st Century Technology Suite and establishing the 

standards for that technology in year one of the plan. 

• Researching options for computing devices t, such a netbooks and virtual, thin client 

computers to lower total costs of the 21 st Century Technology Suite. 

• Completion of the school inventories to identify what existing technology meets these 

standards. 

• Developing a deployment schedule that is aligned with the implementation of the 21 st 

Century Integrated Science, Arts, Literacy Curriculum. 

May 2009 62


• Developing a deployment schedule to support Innovation Classrooms and 

implementation of the sites’ Balanced Score Cards. 

• Adoption of a computer replacement policy. 

• Aligning available technology funding sources towards the deployment of the 21 st 

Century Technology Suite. 

Capacity Building - Developing a Robust Infrastructure: The existing network is incapable 

of supporting a 21 st learning environment and is a barrier to more efficient operations. For 

example, 83% of the schools saturate their bandwidth on a daily basis and the birth of the baby 

panda brought the entire network down as each school tried to participate in the event. 

The district is undertaking a six stage upgrade to provide the infrastructure required for the 21 st 

Century Technology Suite and to provide the bandwidth to support the curriculum and 

professional development goals, such as video streaming, virtual classrooms, video 

conferencing, online video tutorials, and access to a wide range of online and multimedia 

applications. The fiber upgrade will also introduce operational efficiencies and improved 

technical support. 

• Internet Connection – District to the HSK-12N: The San Francisco County Office of 

Education is a hub on the High-Speed K-12 Network (HSK12N). In exchange the 

district/county office provides Internet access to all schools and not-for-profit schools in 

the San Francisco area. The district just upgraded the connection to the HSK-12N to 

one 1-gigabyte fiber with another one-gigabyte connection for fail over. (Completed) 

• Server Center Re-Location: The Server Center will be re-located from a rented facility 

with no environmental controls to a facility constructed specifically to house the servers 

and hardware in the district headquarters. It will have all the required environmental 

controls and security measures required for a modern server center. (Timeframe: April 

2009) 

• Wide Area Network – District Connection to the Schools: Starting in July 2009 the 

district will undertake an eighteen month do a fiber upgrade to the wide area network 

that connects every school and district facility. The will be a ten gigabyte ring connecting 

four sites: District Office and Marshall, Washington and Lincoln High Schools. From 

these four ring sites there will be a one gigabyte fiber to each school in the four services 

areas. This upgrade will increase bandwidth from the District to the school buildings by 

approximately 1,000 times. (See Appendices B-1 and B-2 for schemata of the WAN and 

the build out schedule.) (Timeframe: July 1 2009 – January 2011) 

• Local Area Networks – Connecting Classrooms to the Wired Network: As stated 

earlier, it is the LANs that are the most problematical in terms of their capacity and the 

complexity of the required upgrades, which has been aggravated by the past lack of 

funding for the approximately half the schools that are not eligible for e-rate discounts for 

internal wiring (non-priority 2 schools under e-rate). 

Existing LAN hardware that was purchased with e-rate funding in 2006 can support the 

upgrade. New hardware will be acquired for these e-rate eligible schools in 2010-2011. 

The existing hardware is now three years old and may be used at non-priority 2 schools, 

This LAN hardware will be deployed concurrently with the WAN upgrade in 2009-2010. 

However, many schools also have wring issues which will be funded through the Parcel 

Tax funding and will take longer to complete than the proposed 18 months WAN project. 

(Timeframe: July 2009 – June 2011) 

May 2009 63


• Local Area Networks – Wireless Classroom Connections: The LAN build-out will 

also include a network of wireless access points to support mobile computing. When 

complete, high-speed wired and wireless broadband access will be available in each 

classroom, pending the deployment of the computers outlined in “ Access to 

Technology” above. (Timeframe: July 2009-June 2011) 

• Network Environment: With the move of the server center and the completion of the 

WAN, the district will re-design the network environment to a virtual server farm to 

centralize and streamline support services. For example, the new environment will 

include data security, data storage and backup; a firewall between the core data and 

services, and central monitoring of the network, remote desktop support, remote 

software downloads and so on. VNC remote control software will allow a central 

technician to view and interact any computer desktop on the network, regardless of 

platform or type. The end user can see what the technician is doing on his workstations 

during a remote tech support session. Any desktop can be controlled remotely from 

within a browser without having to install software (Timeframe: July 1, 2009 - 2012) 

(See Appendix B-1: Wide Area Network Architecture and Appendix B-2 Wide Area Network 

Timetable.) 

Electronic Systems: A number of new electronic systems are in development to support data 

driven decision-making and the deployment of the 21 st Century Curriculum and the Equity- 

Centered Professional Learning Communities initiatives and to increase revenue: 

• Horizon, the new point-of-sale system for Nutrition Services to streamline the 

processing of payments and to improve free and reduced lunch data reporting for a 

range of categorical programs, such as Title 1, and technology programs, such as the 

federal e-rate discount program. (Timeframe: 2009-2010) 

• Student Information System: Alternatives to the current student information system are 

currently under review. The new student information system is needed to improve data 

quality for state reporting and to support the Program management Initiative and datadriven 

decision making at the district and site levels. Timeframe: 2009-2010) 

• Data Management System: The two data management systems is use by the district 

today are based on old architecture, have limited functionalities and can’t “talk” to each 

other. The district is migrating to a new more robust, web-based data system that 

supports the new student information system. The data system will enable teachers and 

administrators to easily access more complex data reports and provide them with the 

tools for deeper analysis of data. (Timeframe: 2009-2010) 

• Project Management System: The district is research tools to support a project 

management system to monitor progress towards the departments’ and the sites’ 

Balanced Score Cards. Timeframe: in planning 2009) 

Electronic Resources: 

• District licenses for Learning: Moving away from the focus on electronic resources for 

intervention and remediation purposes, the district is implementing two electronic 

learning resources to enrich and accelerate student learning. The Renzulli Learning 

Differentiation Engine is designed to put students in touch with engaging, individualized 

resources specially chosen for their interest areas and learning styles. The Education 

Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY), a program of Stanford University, gives students 

May 2009 64


access to accelerated secondary and university level mathematics, writing and physics 

courses. EPGY is being piloted with students at eight under performing schools. 

Policies and Review Procedures 

• School Loop: As described in Strand 3: Curriculum, School Loop is a teacher, student 

and parent portal to improve two way communications between home and school, give 

students greater involvement in their education and to give teachers tools to manage the 

classroom and set up class/course web sites. Teachers will also be able to maintain 

electronic grade book and take attendance electronically, replacing current paper 

processes. 

• High Speed K-12 Network Services (HSK-12N): With the upgraded Internet 

connection to the state’s broadband educational network, or HSK-12N, the district how 

has access to a range of broadband services. The district will start to plan how best to 

use the HSK-12N resources such as videoconferencing, distance learning, virtual 

professional development, and EdZone once the schools are connected to the upgraded 

WAN. 

• Computrace: The Strategic Plan makes mobile computing a priority for students and 

teachers. To manage the growing number of laptop computers, the district has now 

made Computrace, a web-based computer tracking system, standard on each laptop. 

Not only can laptops be traced, but hard drives can be wiped remotely to protect against 

the loss of sensitive student and employee data. 

Technical Support: In 2009-2010 four additional technical support positions will be filled and a 

regional technical support system put in place. Currently technicians are assigned to trouble 

tickets as they come in. Now each school will have a designated technician, with the level of 

support based on school enrollment. Each high school will have between a .6 to .8FTE and 

each elementary and middle school .2 to .6 FTE. Not only would each technician get to know 

the schools for which he/she is responsible and schools know whom to call, but there can be 

greater accountability for service. There are now three trainers. Their first responsibilities 

during 2009-2010 are to support the deployment and use of School Loop, but to develop online 

tutorials and FAQs for the most frequently occurring technical problems. One of the new 

technicians will also be responsible to developing a new Service Request System to improve 

response time and reduce fact finding follow-up communications with the sites. As mentioned 

above, the Technology Resource Center is also being organized to serve as the center for all 

technology processing and recycling. Once the WAN is completed, the ITD will begin to roll out 

the remote management functions, including network management, remote desktop support, 

and centralized software upgrades and installations to improve efficiencies and reliability. 

May 2009 65


C. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, BENCHMARKS AND TIMELINE 

C.1. Hardware and Infrastructure to Support 

CURRICULUM GOAL H.1: APPROPRIATE ACCESS BY ALL STUDENTS AND TEACHERS, 

Curriculum Objective H1.1: By 2012 40% of the instructional rooms, including classrooms, labs and 

library media centers, will be equipped with 21 st Century Technology Suite that includes computing 

devices, projection systems, electronic resources and Internet connectivity. 

Curriculum Objective H1.2: By 2012 100 % of the classrooms will be connected to a robust wired 

and wireless network that allows students and teachers to access a rich range of interactive, 

multimedia applications and instructional resources and to collaborate and communicate with a 

global community. 

Hardware Benchmarks 








Person responsible: Assoc. Superintendent, APD; CIO/ITD 

1. Define the 21 st Century Technology Suite for the classroom, 

library/media center and school as a whole and establish annual 

standards for the hardware. 

2. Review policies such as Acceptable Use Policies and policies on the 

use of personal technology such as laptops, cell phones and other 

hand held devices to bring them into line with 21 st Century learning 

goals while complying with the Children’s Internet Protection Act and 

Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. 

3. Deploy of the 21st Century Technology Suite and infrastructure 

upgrade with the implementation of the 21 st Century Integrated 

Science-Arts, Literacy Curriculum at the “models for success” schools 

and with other technology-related programs. (See also Strand 3 - 

Curriculum) 

• Cohort 1: 3 elementary, 2 middle and 1 high school 



4. Complete the on-site inventory of computers and other hardware to 

establish school needs to meet the 21 st Century Technology Suite. 

May 2009 66 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1


5. Develop a timeline for the deployment of the 21 st Century Technology 

Suite based on the timeline, the BSCs and the needs of targeted 

student subgroups. 

6. Develop a selection and application process for Innovative Classrooms to 

model best practices and serve as professional development lab 

classrooms for schools developing their 21 st Century Curriculum (See 

also Strand 4: Professional Development – “Innovation Classrooms”) 

7. Deploy the 21 st Century Technology Suites to the Innovative Classrooms 

• Cohort 1: 10 Innovative Classrooms 



8. Adopt a computer replacement policy with the goal of maintaining a 

ratio of not more than 5 students per each computing device that is 

less than 5 years old and connected to the Internet. 

Infrastructure Benchmarks 

By 2010 the San Francisco County Office of Education and the San Francisco Unified School 

District will be connected to the California High Speed K-12 Network (HSK-12N) with a 10 

gig/second fiber network. 

By 2011 each school in the district will be connected to the HSK-12N, the Internet and to the 

district through a 1 gig/second fiber network. 

By 2012 each classroom will be connected to the district WAN and to the Internet through a 

broadband wired and wireless network. 

Person responsible: CIO/ITD Year 

1. Complete the connection to the HSk-12N (Complete) 

2. Retain a WAN Fiber Upgrade Project Manager (Complete) 

3. Complete the move to the new Server Center at district headquarters. April ‘09 

4. Review policies such as Acceptable Use Policies and filtering to bring them 

into line with 21 st Century learning goals while complying with the Children’s 

Internet Protection Act and Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. 

5. Begin the upgrade of the WAN July 2009 and complete within 18 months as 

per the contract with AT&T. (See Appendix B-2 for a WAN upgrade timetable) 

6. Complete the network walk-throughs of all schools to determine LAN 

hardware upgrade needs and wireless access point placements. 

7. Transfer existing LAN hardware to approximately 43 targeted non-priority 2 

schools during the WAN deployment. 

8. Deploy the new LAN hardware to the remaining 69 schools funded through 

Round 13 e-rate discounts for priority 2 schools. 

9. Deploy wireless access points 2-3 

May 2009 67 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

1 

1-2 

1 

1-2 

2


10. Complete the server and network re-design to include security systems, 

security instruction detection, remote desktop management include centralized 

software upgrades and remote access software. 

C.2. LEARNING RESOURCES TO SUPPORT: 

CURRICULUM GOAL I1. STUDENT RECORD KEEPING AND ASSESSMENT: 

Curriculum Objective I1.1: By 2012 100% of the teachers will use School Loop and the data 

system on a regular basis to improve classroom management, monitor student progress, 

differentiate instruction to meet identified student needs and communicate with students and 

parents. 

GOAL J1. UTILIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HOME 

AND SCHOOL: 

Objective J.1: By 2012 100% of the administrators and teachers will use School Loop, district 

e-mail, the web, call-out systems and other tools on a regular basis to give all parents and 

students timely, linguistically appropriate access to meaningful information and improve two-way 

communications between the home and school. 

Learning Resources Benchmarks: 

By 2010 School Loop, along with the grade book and attendance functions, will be made 

available to all teachers, administrators, students and administrators. 

By 2011 the new data system will be implemented and made available to all teachers, 

administrators and appropriate classified staff. 

By 2012 the new student information system will be fully implemented and made 

available to administrators, teachers and appropriate classified staff. 


Person responsible: Assoc. Superintendent, APD; Executive Director, RPA, 

CIO/IT 

1. (See also Strand 3: Curriculum Goals) 

2. Establish a review policy and procedures for software and other online 

electronic resources, including electronic resources during textbook adoption 

processes, to ensure they are consistent with the goals and principles of the 

21 st Century Curriculum Initiative, can be supported by the current and planned 

hardware and infrastructure and have adequate professional development and 

technical support proposed. 

3. Define the 21 st Century Technology Suite, including the suite of electronic 

resources, and identify additional electronic resources for learning acceleration 

and enrichment, especially for targeted subgroups of under performing 

students. 

4. Deploy the electronic resources that are part of the 21 st Century Technology 

Suite and the acceleration and enrichment resources for the 21 st Century 

Integrated Curriculum Schools (5/year), and the Innovative Classrooms (10 in 

year 1 and 20 in years 2 and 3). 

5. Post information on electronic resources and associated best practices that are 1-3 

May 2009 68 

1 

1 

1-3 

2


effective with targeted subgroups of under performing students on the 

Promising Practices Website and Directory. 

6. Finalize the selection of and implement the new data system and develop a 

train the trainer program to provide professional development and support for 

all end user groups. . 

7. Research and migrate to a new student information system (SIS) that has a 

robust integrated database, and includes secure portals for teachers, parents 

and students. 

8. Develop a training and implementation plan to deploy the new SIS. 1 

9. Implement the new SIS and professional development plan for all end users. 2 

10. Roll out School Loop functions o all school sites, including attendance 

keeping and grade book to replace current manual systems. 

C.3. Technical Support to Support 

All Curriculum Goals D1 – J1 

Technical Support Benchmarks 

By 2010 ITD will implement a regional technical support system and online technical 

support services. 

By 2011 the Technology Resource Center will serve as the district technology 

processing and re-cycling center 

By 2012 the centralized network and technical support management systems will be 

operational. 


Person responsible: Executive Director, RPA, CIO/ITD 

1. Retain four additional technical support positions. 1 

2. Implement the regional support system and the new Service Request System 1 

3. Review service requests and develop FAQs and tutorials for posting on the IT web 

site. 

4. Complete a re-organization for the Technology Resource Center 2 

5. (See deployment of the centralized, remote network and hardware management 

systems to reduce technical support costs – See C.1. above) 

D. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 



prepare detailed resource project plans each year to meet the annual benchmarks in the 

Infrastructure, Hardware, Software and Technical Support Strand (Infrastructure). 

May 2009 69 

1 

1-2 

1 

1-2 

2-3


The Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG) is a committee composed of the CIO and 



Technology will be responsible for documenting the progress of the Technology Plan, will staff (ITAG) 

and serve as the liaison between the ITD and APD. The CIO will serve as the liaison between ITAG 

and the Superintendent’s Cabinet. 

The Supervisor of Instructional Technology will prepare quarterly reports on progress towards 

the Infrastructure benchmarks for ITAG. On behalf of the ITAG, the Supervisor of Instructional 

Technology will submit semi-annual reports to Associate Superintendent of APD, the CIO of 

ITD, and the Executive Director of Research, Planning and Accountability (RPA). Annual 

reports will be submitted to the Superintendent’s Cabinet and to the Board of Education with 

recommendations for each year’s annual implementation plan. 

Evaluation Instrument(s) & Data To Be Collected Frequency 

Collection 

of 


TBD 

• District and site measures of progress towards BSC technology 

objectives 

California School Technology Survey (when available) 

• Student to Computer ratios. 

• Where students use technology 

• Connectivity 

Vendor Reports 

• Network vendor(s) reports on contract deliverables 

Network Management Systems 

• Network utilization 

• Status and use of networked computers, accessories and software 

• Security intrusions and resolutions 

• AUP and security policy violations 


• Technology support response time 

Technology Installation Logs 

• Deployment of the hardware, software, infrastructure 

Service Request System 

• Type of service requests 

• Service response times by type of service requested, by school, etc. 

• Technician response time 

Annually 

Monthly 

Ongoing 

Annually 

Quarterly 

Monthly 

May 2009 70


A. INTRODUCTION 

Strand 6 – Budget 

An estimated annual budget for the next three years developed for the Technology Plan is 

based on current conditions and cannot anticipate: 

• Future changes in the revenue stream from the recently approved parcel tax. 

• Changes in federal and state funding for education in general and for technology in 

particular. 

• Cost increases and/or savings for the 21 st Century Technology Suite that might result 

from emerging technologies. 

• Costs arising from policies and procedures to be implemented over the course of the 

plan, such as changes in the filtering policy 

• Savings that will result from the upgraded infrastructure and improved network and 

hardware management systems. 

• The impact of improved coordination in funding for technology from the multiple general 

purpose, categorical and site funds. 

• Changes in the schedule for deployment of technology that result from modifications in 

the 21 st Century Curriculum, Equity-Centered Professional Learning and/or the 

Performance Management Initiatives. 

Therefore, these estimates should not be the basis for decision-making and will be revised as 

additional information becomes available. The plan is a strategic document and an annual 

implementation plan and budget will be developed based on the available resources. 

The recently approved parcel tax will ensure a steady revenue stream for technology of $3.5 

million dollars a year, enabling an unprecedented level of planning. This funding will support the 

basic infrastructure upgrades and some of the proposed server management systems over the 

first two year. However, the actual costs for the Technology master Plan is approximately $18 

million a year. Therefore, the coordination among the departments and schools for the 

planning, acquisition and support for technology and the cost savings anticipated from the 

network upgrades remain critical to the implementation of this plan. However, the district will 

also have to look to partnerships, grants and other additional support to ensure the plan can be 

implemented as proposed. 

Historically, there has been little coordination among the central office departments and school 

sites regarding technology acquisition. And rarely has technology purchases included funding 

for deployment, security, maintenance, technical support or replacement. In addition, there is 

limited funding dedicated to technology, and, therefore, support for technology must be cobbled 

together from different sources: general purpose, categorical, and one-time and grant funds. 

Most of these funds, like e-rate and categorical programs, may be used for specific subpopulations. 

All of these factors complicate the deployment of a coherent technology program. 

These factors form a strong argument for a common vision for technology in the schools and a 

process to coordinate funding for technology to support district wide as well as individual site 

needs. The Strategic Plan, supplemented by this Technology Master Plan, provide that vision. 

Now there is a need to develop the processes and procedures for a unified or coordinated 

funding model for technology. 

May 2009 71


The ITD and APD are now developing processes and procedures to implement a more 

coordinated, cohesive implementation of the Instructional Technology Master Plan.. APD and 

ITD jointly hired a Supervisor for Instructional Technology, a position that was vacant for seven 

years, to serve as a liaison between APD and IT and oversee the implementation of the 

Instructional Technology Master Plan. IT and APD jointly led the revision of this Instructional 

Technology Master Plan. Biweekly, APD and ITD staff meet to review current technology 

projects, address policy issues, and review progress on the Plan. This team, the Instructional 

Technology Advisory Group (ITAG), provides leadership in seeking grant opportunities, shaping 

technology policies, and coordinating professional development related to instructional 

technology. Over the last two years, ITAG has coordinated deployment of over thirty labs and 

accompanying professional development in SFUSD’s secondary schools. 

The Technology Plan recommends that ITAG develop a process to involve the major 

stakeholders to identify needs and to coordinate the planning and funding for technology. That 

process should address the following factors: 

• Co-design the infrastructure, hardware, and software components that comprise the 21 st 

Century Technology Suite that must be available to all populations and programs. 

• Identify the technology resources and best practices for accelerated and enrichment 

learning opportunities for targeted subgroups of students. 

• Identify the professional development and technical support required for effective 

implementation of the resources. 

• Identify all sources of funding that are available to support technology. 

• Coordinate funding from multiple sources to support that baseline technology. 

Once the necessary costs and resources are determined, the district should establish an ongoing, 

annual commitment in the regular budget to support educational technology in the 

classrooms and schools. 

B. ESTABLISHED AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES AND COST SAVINGS 

The major sources of current funding for technology are: 

• Parcel Tax: The parcel tax will provide $3.5 million a year for technology. This funding 

will provide a baseline of funding for the infrastructure upgrade, maintenance and 

technical support. However, to raise the $18 million a year that is actually required to 

support the technology plan, the district must maximize savings from e-rate, take full 

advantage of available technology grants and coordinate technology expenditures from 

departments and the sites (see below). 

• Infrastructure and Tele-communications Services - E-Rate: In 2008-09 the district 

applied for $2,749,555 in telecommunications discount e-Rate for elements of the 

network upgrade, the infrastructure upgrade, and the recurring telecommunications 

services. For 2009-2010, the district has applied for $4,204,000, which includes the 

WAN upgrade. SFUSD plans to submit e-rate applications for $4,080,000 for the WAN 

upgrade and telecommunications services. 

• Teaching and Learning - EETT Formula: In 2008-09 the district received $154,040 in 

EETT Formula funds, down from $373,817 in 2007-08. EETT Formula funds have been 

used to fund two additional desktop technicians to service the schools, a teacher on 

May 2009 72


special assignment for professional development, substitutes and stipends for 

professional development, travel to conferences, and contract services for technology 

planning and professional development support. 

• K-12 Voucher: The district is using $1.3 million from the K-12 General Voucher funds to 

add a full computer lab in all secondary schools. The $1.3 million reserved for software 

expenses has been allocated by ITAG to purchase key volume licenses of applications, 

including NetTrekker, Discovery Streaming, and Microsoft Office. This fund will be 

expended in the 2009-10 school year. 

• Professional Development: In addition to EETT formula that supports technology 

related professional development, all divisions of the Academics and Professional 

Development Department offer professional development that is funded through a wide 

variety of sources including Title II, AB 466, state ELL and BTSA funds. Currently, 

technology is not a major component of the professional development funded through 

these programs. The district proposes to leverage these resources by training the 

professional development specialists in these programs in the use of technology to 

support student achievement and having teams of technology integration specialists and 

content specialists co-plan professional development. 

• Library Services: In 2005 the state Library Materials Program was combined with the 

School Improvement Block Grant. In 2008-09 the School and Library Improvement 

Block Grant apportionment was $4,639,368 for SFUSD and SFCOE. Of that $2 was 

earmarked for Library materials. For 2009-2010 the School and Library Improvement 

Program received a 15% reduction and was one of the categorical programs that gave 

districts flexibility in the use of the funds. The level of funding for libraries has not yet 

been finalized for 2009-2010. The Public Education Enrichment Fund or PEEF (formerly 

Proposition H) was approved in 2005-2006 to support a range of enrichment services, 

including libraries. PEEF now funds school librarians, the Library Program Administrator, 

Teacher on Special Assignment for Library Services, and online databases and services, 

such as NetTrekker, Newsbank, Teaching Books and AP Images. Textbook funds 

support some online services (NetTrekker) and the Destiny library and textbook 

circulation license. The district funds a full-time Library Technician. 

• Career Technical Education/Regional Occupational Program (ROP): School-to- 

Career/ROP received $462,285 for the CTE/ROP Consortium in 2008-09. In addition 

ROP generates $3,000 per participant between the ages of 16-18 in ADA. 

• Assistive Technology (AT): The state mandates the inclusion of AT as part of a 

student Individualize Instructional Plan (IDEA Part B, 1997). Districts receive weighted 

formula funds through the state that is allocated to the sites to acquire AT. In addition, 

Special Education has an Alternative Augmentative Communications (AAC) program 

that generates an additional $200,000 a year, which may be used to complement 

technology the district provides. 

• Data and Assessment: The license for Cruncher, the district data system is $1.15 a 

student or $64,000 a year funded through the software component of the K-12 Voucher 

grant. OARS data system was developed to support benchmark assessments. SFUSD 

has identified the need for a more robust assessment and achievement data 

management system. PEEF funding has been set aside to acquire and implement an 

May 2009 73


assessment and data management system for the 2010 school year to replace 

Cruncher, OARS, and additional stand-alone databases maintained by the district. 

Anticipated Funding: The Technology Master Plan budget anticipates that the following 

funding will continue to be available to support plan implementation: Parcel tax, e-Rate, Career 

Technical Education, ROP, EETT Formula, IDEA, AAC, School Improvement Block grants, SB 

1113, Proposition 20 lottery funds, Proposition H from the City and other ELL funds, state 

teacher induction funds along with general fund support now provided to the district and school 

sites. However, the district anticipates significant reductions in state funding for all or most of 

these programs. The impact of the federal stimulus package has not yet been assessed. 

Given the Strategic Plan’s emphasis on technology as essential to 21 st century learning and the 

21 st century organizations, the Plan anticipates an increase in the overall level of funding, 

especially if the district successfully gains support for a unified or coordinated budget for 

technology from all the impacted departments and schools. 

Potential New Funding Sources: SFUSD will apply for EETT Competitive funds in 2009 and 

closely follow the availability of any other state or local funding options during the next three 

years. The district also intends to expand on its current strategic partnerships, including the 

Academy advisory boards, and seek sponsorships for the proposed Innovation Classrooms. As 

discussed earlier, the district will also align technology resources towards the Technology Plan. 

Cost Savings and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): The district is taking steps to reduce the TCO, 

including: 

• Completion of the network upgrade. 

• Migrating to web-based electronic resources wherever possible. 

• Automating infrastructure, hardware and applications management functions. 

• Establishment of standards for the 21 st Century Technology Suite to ensure equitable 

access to the tools of learning and to reduce technical support and to focus professional 

development. 

• Enforcing technology donation and obsolescence policies. 

• Implementing the computer replacement policy. 

• Partnering with strategic vendors to offload installation, maintenance and repair services. 

• Mandating a minimum of three year, on-site service warranties. 

• Creation of a technology planning and monitoring process that includes the Chief 

Academic Office, site administrators and Chief Information Office to fund, deploy and 

support infrastructure development and hardware and software. 

C. ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 

Budget Impacts: The Technology Plan calls for the following strategies that have major 

impacts on the budget over the next three years: 

• Fiber Network Upgrade: Completing the fiber upgrade of the wide area network 

over the next eighteen months and the local area networks over the next two years. 

• Server Environment Re-design: Completing the re-location of the server center 

and implementing the network management systems over the next two years. 

(Remote network and desktop managements systems, centralized applications and 

file storage, etc.). 

May 2009 74


• Classroom Portal System Implementation: SFUSD has acquired School Loop to 

provide parents, students, and teachers with on-line access to assignments, grades, 

attendance, and collaborative tools. In addition to the software licensing costs, the 

project stipends a lead teacher at each school site, funds extended calendar for 

after-school teacher and classified staff trainings, and funds training and project 

management positions to support the rollout. 

• Student Nutrition Management System: SFUSD is deploying a Student Nutrition 

Management and Point of Sale System through the 2009-10 school year. Through 

Parcel Tax funding, the project includes district wide licensing of the Horizon 

management system, point of sale terminals for all SFUSD sites, project 

management, and training. 

• Data and Assessment Systems: Acquiring data and student information 

management systems, designing a performance management system and providing 

the training for end users. (Training costs impacted by negotiated contract with 

selected vendors.) 

• 21 st Century Integrated Curriculum: Deploying the 21 st Century Technology Suite 

to support the implementation of the 21 st Century Integrated Science, Arts, Literacy 

Curriculum schools. (Fifteen schools over three years) 

• Innovation Classrooms – Deploying the 21 st Century Technology Suite to 

demonstration “Innovation Classrooms” throughout the district plus supporting 

Innovation Classroom teachers. (Fifty classrooms over the next three years) 

• Capacity Building: Retaining technology integration specialists to work with 

existing content and professional development leadership to (a) co-design curriculum 

and professional development in which technology is embedded and (b) to train 

existing district and site leadership to become proficient in the use of technology to 

support 21 st Century curriculum. (Six FTEs over the next three years, although 

additional support will be provided through the strategic partnerships.) 

• Teacher Technology Leaders: Supporting a minimum of one teacher technology 

leader at each school and providing stipends. (112 teachers plus support from a 

district office staff) 

• Technical Support: An increase in technical support at the district level. SFUSD 

aims to increase staffing levels to provide (on average) .6 FTE per High School, .4 

FTE per middle school, and .2 FTE per Elementary School. This would increase the 

total number of school site desktop support technicians from ten to thirty positions. 

• Computer Replacement: Adopting a computer replacement policy and schedule to 

maintain a ratio of five students per computer that is less than five years of age. The 

computer replacement plan will be introduced in year three, after the technology 

inventory is complete, the initial 21 st Century Technology Suites have been deployed 

and assessed and the infrastructure upgrade is complete. With the network 

upgrade, the district can re-assess lower cost computer replacement options and 

develop a computer replacement timetable (2,248 annually – see C. below). 

May 2009 75


Master Plan for Instructional Technology: Projected Budget 2009-2010 

Total Existing Funding Unfunded Balance 

Category ITD Parcel E-Rate EETT K12 PEEF Other Grants Unfunded Potential Source 

Budget Tax 

Voucher 

Depts. 

Balance 

Support for Curriculum Integration 

Supervisor, Instructional 


Technology Integration 

Specialists 

120,000 120,000 

320,000 320,000 EETT, Grants 

Stipends for Teacher Leaders 100,000 100,000 Stimulus Package 

Professional Development and Training 

Funding for ongoing technology 

embedded professional 

development* 

IT Staff Training 30,000 30,000 

On-Line Professional 

Development 

May 2009 76 

Reallocation of existing PD 

Resources 

65,000 65,000 Reallocation of existing PD 

Resources 

Travel and Conferences 25,000 25,000 

Technical Support & Operations 

Desktop Technicians 1,780,000 640,000 350,000 90,000 350,000 350,000 Increase in Parcel Tax revenue 

HelpDesk 450,000 450,000 

Network Ops 1,030,000 920,000 110,000 

Server Ops 1,010,000 1,010,000 

Trainers 250,000 250,000 

Business Applications 1,400,000 1,400,000 

Student Applications 1,050,000 1,050,000 

Other Support and Management 680,000 680,000 

Maintenance 

Consultant Support 

SIS- CSIS Best Practices 100,000 60,000 40,000 

Erate 65,000 65,000 

Other 30,000 30,000 

Hardware Maintenance 310,000 310,000 

Software Maintenance 420,000 420,000 

Replacement Hardware 295,000 295,000 

Other Supplies 80,000 80,000 

Category ITD Parcel E-Rate EETT K12 PEEF Other Grants Unfunded Potential Source


Telecommunications 

Budget Tax Voucher Depts. Balance 

Voice Lines 2,200,000 440,000 1,760,000 

Telephone Maintenance 480,000 480,000 

Cellular 110,000 110,000 

Replacement Equipment 45,000 45,000 

District Software Licenses 

WAN 2,300,000 460,000 1,840,000 

Microsoft Enterprise 510,000 510,000 

Filtering Software 45,000 45,000 

GoalView (Special Education) 200,000 200,000 

Renzulli Learning System 

EPGY 

Other Educational Software 750,000 70,000 200,000 480,000 

Key Projects 

21st Century Technology 

Suite 

21st Century Integrated 

Curriculum Schools 

2,400,000 2,400,000 21st Century Curriculum 

Initiative 

Innovation Classrooms 120,000 120,000 21st Century Curriculum 

Initiative 

Instructional Technology 

Replacement 

Teacher Laptop Program 1,300,000 1,300,000 Stimulus Package, PEEF 

Instructional Computer 

Replacement 

Assistive Technologies for 

Resource Centers 

Data Management 

0 

100,000 100,000 

Data Management Software 290,000 290,000 

Student Information System 

(Purchase and Implementation) 

2,000,000 2,000,000 PEEF, Performance 

Management Inititiative Grant 

CSIS/CALPADS Implementation 400,000 400,000 

Data Warehouse 100,000 100,000 Performance Management 

Inititiative Grant 

Project Manager 150,000 150,000 

May 2009 77


Category ITD Parcel E-Rate EETT K12 PEEF Other Grants Unfunded Potential Source 

Budget Tax 

Voucher 

Depts. 

Balance 

Staff Training in New 1,600,000 1,600,000 Existing Professional Dev 

Systems 

Opportunities 

Home School 

Communication (School 

Loop) 

School Loop Contract 420,000 420,000 

Project Management 75,000 75,000 

Stipends for Teacher 

Leaders 

Extended Calendar for 

Training 

Fiber WAN 

Trainer 100,000 100,000 

75,000 75,000 

100,000 100,000 

Installation/Service 755,000 151,000 604,000 

Project 

Management/Administration 

240,000 240,000 

Network Engineer 140,000 140,000 

WAN Hardware 300,000 300,000 

LAN Hardware/Cabling 500,000 500,000 Facilities funding, School 

Budgets, Parcel Tax Carryover 

Student Nutrition POS System 

Horizon Contract 200,000 200,000 


Trainer 50,000 50,000 

Network Technician 120,000 120,000 

Connectivity and Electrical 

Upgrades 

Hardware 160,000 160,000 

150,000 150,000 

Extra Hours for Training 20,000 20,000 

TOTAL 2009-2010 28,190,000 9,460,000 2,986,000 4,204,000 90,000 710,000 290,000 1,155,000 440,000 8,855,000 

May 2009 78


Master Plan for Instructional Technology 2010-2011 

Costs Existing Funding Unfunded Balance 

Category ITD Budget Parcel Tax E-Rate EETT K12 PEEF Other Grants Unfunded Potential Source 

Voucher 

Depts. 

Balance 




120,000 120,000 

Technology Integration 

Specialists 

320,000 320,000 EETT, Grants 


Leaders 

100,000 100,000 Stimulus Package 

Professional Development/Training 

Funding for ongoing 


technology embedded 

professional 

development*** 

- Resources 


On-Line Professional 65,000 

- 

65,000 Reallocation of existing PD 

Development 

Resources 

Travel and Conferences 25,000 25,000 

- 


Desktop Technicians 2,130,000 640,000 350,000 90,000 350,000 700,000 Increase in Parcel Tax revenue 

HelpDesk 450,000 450,000 

Network Ops 1,030,000 920,000 

Server Ops 1,010,000 1,010,000 

Trainers 250,000 250,000 



Other Support & 

Management 


680,000 680,000 

Erate 65,000 65,000 

Other 30,000 30,000 

Maintenance 


110,000 

May 2009 79 

-


Category ITD Budget Parcel Tax E-Rate EETT K12 

Voucher 


Replacement Hardware 295,000 295,000 

Other Supplies 80,000 80,000 


Voice Lines 2,200,000 440,000 1,760,000 

Telephone Maintenance 480,000 480,000 

Cellular 110,000 110,000 

Replacement Equipment 45,000 45,000 

WAN 2,300,000 460,000 1,840,000 



Filtering Software 45,000 45,000 

GoalView (Special 

Education) 


EPGY 

May 2009 80 

PEEF Other 

Depts. 

100,000 100,000 

Other Educational Software 750,000 70,000 680,000 

Key Projects 

21st Century Technology Suite 

21st Century Integrated 2,400,000 


Grants Unfunded 

Balance 

Potential Source 

21st Century Curriculum Initiative 

2,400,000 

Innovation Classrooms 120,000 120,000 21st Century Curriculum Initiative 

Instructional Technology Replacement 



Replacement 





Software 

- 

100,000 100,000 

290,000 290,000



Voucher 


(Purchase/Implementation) 

PEEF Other Grants Unfunded Potential Source 

Depts. 

Balance 

2,000,000 2,000,000 Performance Management 

Initiative Grant 


Staff Training in New 

Systems 

1,600,000 1,600,000 Existing PD Opportunities 

Home School Communication 

(School Loop) 




Leaders 

Extended Calendar for 

Training 

Fiber WAN 

Trainer 100,000 100,000 

75,000 75,000 

50,000 50000 

Installation/Service 600,000 120000 480000 

Project 

Management/Administration 

240,000 

Network Engineer 140,000 140,000 

WAN Hardware 300,000 300,000 

LAN Hardware/Cabling 200,000 200,000 Facilities funding, School Budgets, 

and Parcel Tax Carryover 




Trainer 50,000 50,000 

Network Technician 120,000 120,000 

Connectivity/Electrical 

Upgrades 

Hardware 20,000 20,000 

20,000 20,000 


TOTAL 2010-2011 26,780,000 9,910,000 2,350,000 4,080,000 90,000 - 290,000 1,255,000 - 8,805,000 

May 2009 81


Master Plan for Instructional Technology 2011-2012 

Costs Existing Funding Unfunded Balance 

Category ITD Budget Parcel Tax E-Rate EETT K12 PEEF Other Grants Unfunded Potential Source 

Voucher 

Dept 

Balance 




120,000 120,000 

Technology Integration 320,000 

Specialists 

320,000 EETT, Grants 

Stipends for Teacher 100,000 

Leaders 

Professional Development/Training 

100,000 Stimulus Package 

Funding for ongoing 


technology embedded 

professional development 

Resources 


On-Line Professional 65,000 65,000 Reallocation of existing PD 

Development 

Resources 

Travel and Conferences 25,000 


25,000 

Desktop Technicians 2,480,000 640,000 350,000 90,000 350,000 1,050,000 Increase in Parcel Tax revenue. 

HelpDesk 450,000 450,000 

Network Ops 1,380,000 920,000 460,000 

Server Ops 1,010,000 1,010,000 

Trainers 250,000 250,000 



Other Support and 680,000 680,000 

Management 

Project Management Office 300,000 300,000 


Erate 65,000 65,000 

Other 30,000 30,000 

Maintenance 



May 2009 82



Voucher 

Replacement Hardware 295,000 

Other Supplies 


80,000 

Voice Lines 2,200,000 

Telephone Maintenance 480,000 

Cellular 110,000 

Replacement Equipment 45,000 


WAN 2,300,000 

295,000 

80,000 

440,000 

480,000 

110,000 

45,000 

460,000 

1,760,000 

1,840,000 

May 2009 83 

PEEF Other 

Dept 


Filtering Software 45,000 

GoalView (Special 100,000 

Education) 


EPGY 

45,000 

100,000 

Other Educational Software 750,000 

Key Projects 

21st Century Technology Suite 

70,000 

680,000 

21st Century Integrated 



Balance 


2,400,000 2,400,000 21st Century Curriculum Initiative 

Innovation Classrooms 120,000 120,000 21st Century Curriculum Initiative 

Instructional Technology Replacement 



Replacement 



1,000,000 1,000,000 PEEF, Restructuring existing 

budgets 

100,000 100,000



Voucher 



Software 


(Purchase and 

Implementation) 

290,000 290,000 

May 2009 84 

PEEF Other 

Dept 


Balance 


2,000,000 2,000,000 Performance Management 

Inititiative Grant 


Staff Training:New Systems 1,600,000 1,600,000 Existing Professional Dev 

Opportunities 

Home School Communication 

(School Loop) 


Trainer 100,000 100,000 

Stipends for Teacher 75,000 

Leaders 

75,000 

Extended Calendar for 20,000 

Training 

Fiber WAN 

20,000 

Installation/Service 600,000 120,000 480,000 

WAN Hardware 300,000 300,000 

LAN Hardware/Cabling 200,000 


200,000 Facilities funding, School Budgets, 

and Parcel Tax Carryover 


Trainer 50,000 50,000 

Hardware 20,000 20,000 


TOTAL 2011-2012 27,980,000 9,910,000 2,200,000 4,080,000 90,000 - 

2,855,000 8,555,000 

290,00 

0


D. COMPUTER REPLACEMENT AND OBSOLESCENCE POLICIES 

Computer Replacement Policy: To maintain a student to computer ratio, the district needs to 

have approximately 11,244 instructional computers in the District and County schools based on 

2008-09 enrollment. Costs of this policy would depend on a number of factors, including 

enrollment, the unit costs of computers and whether computers are purchased or leased. 

However, the chart below provides some guidelines. The district continues to replace desktops 

or laptops at today’s prices, a five year computer replacement plan would costs from $1.6 to 

$2.2 million a year. 27 

However, two factors bring the computer replacement plan within reach. First, emerging mobile 

computing technologies, such as note- and net-books, are dramatically lowering costs for 

computing. With more and more computing power being built into a range of hand-held 

devices, it is anticipated that these costs will continue to drop. Second, the upgraded 

broadband network will reduce the requirements for computing power and storage capabilities 

on the end user workstation, because file storage and applications will reside on the network. 

Using current thin client configurations, “dumb” terminals, costing approximately $300 each, can 

replace the $725 low-end desktop. 

It should also be noted that school sites and district departments expended over $4 million on 

technology in 2007-08. If there is greater coordination between the district and sites and if the 

district takes advantage of the fiber network and emerging technologies to acquire lower cost 

computing devices, it appears that the replacement plan could be supported with current 

resources. 

CHART 18 

2009 Cost/Unit FOUR YEAR CYCLE FIVE YEAR CYCLE 

Number of students (SFUSD, COE) 56,222 56,222 

Number of computers for a 5:1 ratio 11,244 11,244 

Number of computers replaced annually 2,811 2,248 

If Desktop computers $725 $2,037,975 $1,629,800 

If Laptop computers $1,000 $2,811,000 $2,248,000 

If Notebook computers $400 $1,124,400 $899,200 

If Thin client computers $300 $843,300 $674,400 

Obsolete and Donated Equipment Policy: ITD has established hardware standards and 

policies for obsolete and donated equipment. : 

• PC Computers must be able to run or be upgraded to run Microsoft Windows XP 

• Macintosh Computers should be licensed to run at least Mac OS 10.3 

• Technology purchases are referred through SFUSD’s Purchasing Department for ITD 

approval. ITD will regularly reviews standards ensure the equipment meets district needs and 

is at the lowest price available to the district. 

27 These projections address computer replacement only. Estimated costs for a replacement plan for the 21 st Century 

Technology Suite will be determined once standards for the Suite is established in year 1. 

May 2009 85


ITD has also set standards for all major technologies, including desktops, laptops, notebooks, 

monitors, servers, and has negotiated district bulk purchase contracts with vendors. 

Donated and re-cycled computers are processed by the Technology Resource Center. Donated 

computers are accepted if the technology meets standards, which are adjusted annually, and if the 

donation consists of a single brand and model. Donations are still viewed as a last resort, despite the 

apparent cost savings, as often the donations are at, or are nearing, end of supportable life. 

E. MONITOR PROCESS FOR FUNDING AND BUDGET: 

Process to Monitor: Each year the Information Technology Department (ITD) and the Department 

of Academics and Professional Development (APD) will prepare an annual budget based on (a) the 

detailed annual resource project plans for each strand of the Technology Plan and (b) actual budget 

for the year 

The Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG) will be responsible for overall monitoring of the 

Technology Master Plan, staffed by the Supervisor of Instructional Technology. 

The Supervisor of Instructional Technology and the CIO will prepare quarterly budget reports on for 

ITAG and for the Associate Superintendent of APD, and the Executive Director of Research, 

Planning and Accountability (RPA) who will oversee needed mid-course corrections. As part of the 

annual Technology Plan Progress Report, the Supervisor of Instructional Technology and the CIO 

will submit an expenditure report along with a projected budget for the next year to the 

Superintendent’s Cabinet and to the Board of Educations. 


Durable Goods Reports 

Quarterly 

• Hardware acquisition 

• Network infrastructure status 

WAN Contract 

• Deliverables schedule 

PeopleSoft Reports 

• Expenditures by Program 

• Expenditures by funding source 

Technology Installation and Repair Logs 

• Repair and maintenance trends 

• Deployment of technology 

Inventory and Audit System 

• Technology deployment 

Reports to Funding Agencies 

• Expenditure reports by components 

• Implementation timelines 

Monthly 

Quarterly 

Annually 

Monthly 

Annually 

May 2009 86


STRAND 7 - MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

A. PROCESS FOR EVALUATING OF TECHNOLOGY PLAN’S OVERALL PROGRESS AND 

IMPACT ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 

Introduction: Research has found little to no correlation between the deployment of technology 

in traditional teacher-lead classrooms and improvement in student achievement. 28 Research 

shows that technology is effective when technology: 

• Supports student performance of authentic tasks, which usually involve multiple 

disciplines and are challenging in their complexity. 

• Use is integrated into activities that are a core part of classroom curriculum, not 

relegated to the margins. 

• Is treated as a tool to help accomplish a complex task rather than a subject of study for 

29 i30 

its own sake.” 

There is little evidence that high access to technology for drill and practice for any student results in 

significant changes in student performance. Therefore, the evaluation of the impact of technology on 

student learning must examine not only changes in student achievement but how that technology is 

used for teaching and learning. 

Within the specific context of the Strategic Plan SFUSD will assess the impact of the Technology 

Plan on progress towards the goals and objectives in the Balanced Score Cards through the 

Performance Management Initiative. Leadership for the Strategic Plan and for the Technology Master 

Plan will come from the Superintendent and his leadership team and the Equity Centered Principals’ 

Professional Learning Communities. 

Process for Evaluating the Impact of Technology on Student Progress: Technology is an 

integral component of the Strategic Plan. Therefore, evaluation of the impact of technology on 

student progress is tied to the implementation of the overall 21 st Century Integrated Curriculum and 

Equity-Centered Professional Learning Initiatives with monitoring, assessment and accountability 

through t the Program Management Initiative. The sites’ and district departments’ Balanced Score 

Cards (BSCs) are operationalizing the ongoing planning and monitoring processes. 

In addition, the partnerships with the Strategic Education Research Project (SERP) and UC San 

Francisco afford the district access to unprecedented levels of research expertise to assist with the 

design of a data and assessment system to monitor student progress across a range of learning 

skills that should be completed by year one of the plan. 

A particular focus for the assessment of the impact of technology on learning are the 21 st Century 

Integrated Science, Arts, Literacy Curriculum Schools and the Innovation Classrooms that will serve 

28 

Cuban, Larry, Kirkpatrick, Heather, and Craig Peck. "High Access and Low Use of Technologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an 

Apparent Paradox." American Education Research Journal. (Winter 2001). 

29 

Cradler, J., McNabb, M., Freeman, M. and Burchett, R. “How Does Technology Influence Student Learning,” Learning and Leading with 

Technology. (May 2002). 

30 

“An Overview of Technology and Education Reform,” a research project conducted by SRI International and sponsored by the Office of 

Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education. 

May 2009 87


as laboratories for best practices and as “models of success.” Evaluation will be integral to both of 

these pilot efforts. 

Data Collection to Evaluate Impact of the Technology Plan on Teaching and Learning: To 

implement the comprehensive Program Management Initiative, the district is developing a number of 

tools to collect and analyze data from a range of sources: For example: 

• In 2009-2010 the district will replace its out-of-date student information system and the two 

stand- alone data management systems to give administrators and teachers ready access to 

real time data and generate reports that allow for deeper analysis of student, program, school 

and district level data. 

• School Loop enables teachers to create online portfolios of assignments, learning resources 

and student work. It also maintains statistics on teacher utilization and postings and on student 

and parent registration and access to the system. 

• With the completion of the fiber upgrade, the district will be able to implement a range of network 

management tools that will supply extensive and ongoing data on technology deployment and 

use, support response times, and so on. 

The impact of the Technology Master Plan will be monitored and evaluated using these new tools in 

concert with current sources of data as identified in the charts below. 

EVALUATING PROGRESS ON CURRICULUM GOALS 

D1. TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING: All students in grades Pre-K-12, 

including English Learners, Special Education, County and GATE students, will be fully 

immersed in a 21 st century integrated, project-based curriculum in which a standardized suite of 

technology tools will be used to foster 21 st century learning skills, create authentic learning 

environments and engage students in multi-cultural, multilingual learning communities as defined 

in the district’s Strategic Plan. 

AS MEASURED BY: 

Objective D1.1: Models of Success –By 2012 fifteen 

schools will implement the 21 st Century Integrated 

Science, Arts and Literacy Curriculum Initiative and 

serve as “models of success” for the design and 

implementation of 21 st century cross-curricular, project 

based curricula by other schools in the district. 

Objective D1.2: 21 st Century Curriculum – By 2012 

all schools will design and begin to implement a 21 st 

century integrated, project-based and technology 

embedded curricula as defined in the 21 st Century 

Curriculum Initiative and driven by the schools’ 

Balanced Score Cards to address the needs of their 

students 

• Balanced Score Cards 

• EdTechProfile 

• Classroom Observations 

• STAR and CAHSEE data 

• Benchmark assessments data 

• Analysis tools to TBD by the 

Program Management Initiative 

• Feedback from Equity-Centered 

Professional Learning 

Communities 

Assoc. Supt., Academics and 

Professional Development 

Sr. Executive Director, 21 st Century 

Learning & Accountability 

May 2009 88


E1. TECHNOLOGICAL AND INFORMATION LITERACY SKILLS: 

F1. APPROPRIATE AND ETHICAL USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: 

G1. INTERNET SAFETY (ONLINE PRIVACY AND CYBER-SAFETY) 

All students will acquire and apply the information literacy skills to recognize the importance of 

equitable access to information in a democratic society, respect the principles of intellectual 

freedom and intellectual property rights, exercise appropriate and ethical use of technology and 

understand the importance of online privacy and safety. 

Objective E1, F1, and G1: By 2012 all students will be 

able to demonstrate grade level appropriate 

competencies in the Research and Information Fluency 

and the Digital Citizenship standards as defined by the 

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) 

or comparable student technology proficiency standards 

31 . 


• ISTE Standards for Students 

adopted 

• School Loop and hard copy: 

samples of student work and 

teacher assignments 

• Classroom observations 


Assoc. Supt., Academics & 




H1. Appropriate access by all students: All students will have ready and equitable access to, and 

learn to use, a standard suite of high quality, age-level appropriate instructional technology (“21 st 

Century Technology Suite) to achieve proficiency in all curriculum content areas and to become 21 st 

century learners. The use of these tools will be embedded in an integrated, interdisciplinary, 

multicultural and multilingual curriculum. The district and the school sites will ensure that the 21 st 

Century Technology Suite, including the infrastructure, hardware and electronic resources, are 

coordinated with the planning and implementation of the 21 st Century Curriculum and the Professional 

Development Initiatives. 

Objective H1.1: By 2012 40% of the instructional rooms, 

including classrooms, labs and library media centers, will 

be equipped with 21 st Century Technology Suite that 

includes computing devices, projection systems, electronic 

learning resources and Internet connectivity. 


• Technology installation logs 

• Vendors Deliverables Reports 

• Support Request System reports 

• Classroom observations 

• Feedback from Equity-Centered 

Professional Learning 

Communities 

CIO/Information Technology 

31 1998 National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Students, International Society for Technology in Education. 

http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=NETS 

May 2009 89


I1. STUDENT RECORD KEEPING AND ASSESSMENT: Administrators and teachers will become 

proficient with and utilize available technology tools to assess student learning, to plan 

instruction that addresses individual learning needs, to manage student records and to enable 

students and parents to monitor student progress. Students will use technology tools to access 

and organize their work, to collaborate with other students, to set goals for improvement and 

become more responsible for the management of their own learning. 


Objective I1.1: By 2012 100% of the teachers will use 

School Loop and the data system on a regular basis to 

improve classroom management, monitor student 

progress, differentiate instruction to meet identified 

student needs and communicate with students and 

parents. 

• School Loop statistics 

• Feedback from site School Loop 

Liaisons 

• Data system statistics 

• Data meetings’ agendas and 

handouts (IRFs, MSTLI, Equity- 

Centered Professional Learning 

Communities) 

Exec. Director, Research, Planning & 



J1. UTILIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HOME AND 

SCHOOL: District and site administrators and teachers will use a range of technologies to engage 

all parents and students, regardless of language or economic background, in the students’ 

education, to improve home-school communications with all families and to help all parents and 

students to participate in the decision-making at the school and district level. 

Objective J.1: By 2012 100% of the administrators and 

teachers will use School Loop, district e-mail, the web, 

call-out systems and other tools on a regular basis to 

give all parents and students timely, linguistically 

appropriate access to meaningful information and 

improve two-way communications between the home 

and school. 

Objectives J.2: By 2012 50% of families will register 

for School Loop to access student assignments, grades 

and attendance and to communicate with teachers and 

administrators. 



• Sharepoint statistics 

• Feedback from site School Loop 

Liaisons and Web Administrators 





May 2009 90


EVALUATING PROGRESS ON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

B.1. - STAFF TECHNOLOGY PROFICIENCY: All teachers, curriculum and professional development 

specialists, librarians/media specialists, coaches, paraprofessionals and administrators will 

become personally proficient in the use of the 21 st Century Technology Suite, to include personal 

computer productivity tools and the effective use of Internet tools and resources. All staff will 

achieve at least an Intermediate Level of Personal Proficiency as defined by the EdTechProfile. 

Objective B1.1: By 2012 all district and site 

professional and curriculum development leadership will 

achieve Technology Skills Proficiency level on 

EdTechProfile from an estimated baseline of 29% in 

2009. 

Objective B1.2: By 2012 60% of classroom teachers 

and site administrators will achieve a Technology Skills 

Proficiency level on the EdTechProfile from an 

estimated baseline of 29%. 






Sr. Exec. Director, Learning & 

Leadership for Equity 

Supervisor, Instructional Technology 

B.2. – ALIGNING TECHNOLOGY WITH THE 21ST CENTURY CURRICULUM INITIATIVE: All teachers will 

implement a 21 st century curriculum in which powerful technology tools are transparent and will 

use technology to create safe, engaging and authentic learning environments in which students 

are empowered to succeed as defined in the Strategic Plan. 

Objective B2.1: By 2012 all district and site 

professional and curriculum development leadership will 

be proficient in the integration of the 21 st Century 

Technology Suite in a 21 st Century Curriculum up from 

an estimated 7% in 2009. 

Objective B2.2: By 2012 50% of classroom teachers 

and site administrators will be proficient in the 

integration of the 21 st Century Technology Suite in a 21 st 

Century Curriculum up from an estimated 7% in 2009. 



• School Loop and hard copy 









Sr. Exec. Director, Learning & 

Leadership for Equity 


May 2009 91


B3 – DEVELOPING LITERACY SKILLS, ETHICAL AND SAFE USE OF TECHNOLOGY: All teachers and 

staff will understand and develop school environments in which students are able to demonstrate 

information and literacy skills and safe and ethical use of technology, including the Internet. 

Objective B3.1: By 2012 all teachers and staff will 

demonstrate an understanding of the district’s 

acceptable use policies that will include references to 

the Research and Information Fluency and the Digital 

Citizenship standards as defined by International 

Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) up from 

16% in 2009 

Objective B5.2: By 2012 all schools will have an up-todate 

web site with a common baseline of information 

that is easily accessible by students and parents. 






• Classroom Observations 

• Sharepoint statistics 

• Feedback from Site Web 

Administrators 






EVALUATING PROGRESS ON BENCHMARKS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, HARDWARE, TECHNICAL 

Hardware Benchmarks: 

By 2010 15% of the instructional rooms, including 

classrooms, labs and library media centers, will be 

equipped with the 21 st Century Technology Suite. 







SUPPORT AND SOFTWARE 


• Balanced Score Cards 

• California Technology Survey 

(when available) 

• Technology Installation Logs 

• Service Request System 

• Durable Goods Reports 

CIO/ Instructional Technology 

May 2009 92


Infrastructure Benchmarks: 

By 2010 the San Francisco County Office of Education and 

the San Francisco Unified School District will be connected 

to the California High Speed K-12 Network (HSK-12N) with 

a 10 gig/second fiber network. 

By 2011 each school in the district will be connected to the 

HSK-12N, the Internet and to the district through a 1 

gig/second fiber network. 

By 2012 each classroom will be connected to the district 

WAN and to the Internet through a broadband wired and 

wireless network. 

• 

Learning Resources Benchmarks: 

• By 2010 School Loop, along with the grade book 

and attendance functions, will be made available to 

all teachers, administrators, students and 

administrators. 

• By 2011 the new data system will be implemented 

and made available to all teachers, administrators 

and appropriate classified staff. 

• By 2012 the new student information system will be 

fully implemented and made available to 

administrators, teachers and appropriate classified 

staff. 


• Contracts for new services signed 

• Migration schedules 

• New systems online 

• Training schedules and 

documentation 

• System management tools data 



• Contracts for new services signed 

• Migration schedules 

• New systems online 

• Training schedules and 

documentation 





• 

May 2009 93


Technical Support Benchmarks: 

• By 2010 ITD will implement a regional technical 

support system and online technical support 

services. 

• By 2011 the Technology Resource Center will serve 

as the district technology processing and re-cycling 

center 

• By 2012 the centralized network and technical 

support management systems will be operational. 



• Service Request System 

• Technology Resource Center 

service logs 



B. SCHEDULE FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION 

Sites’ and District Balanced Score Cards Annual submission, ongoing monitoring of 

progress towards annual goals 

California School Technology Survey Spring; annually (when available) 

EdTechProfile Spring; annually 

School Loop statistics Monthly 

Sharepoint utilization statistics Monthly 

Classroom Observation Logs At least monthly for teachers in the 21 st 

Century Integrated Curriculum Schools and 

schools with IRFs. 

Coaches Logs At least monthly for teachers in the 21 st 

Agendas, Sign-in Sheets, Handout, Minutes 

and Evaluations: Professional Development 

sessions; meetings of IRFs, Site School Loop 

Liaisons and Web Administrators; and Equity- 

Centered Professional Learning Communities 

Samples of Student Work Products and 

Teacher Assignments (School Loop, hard 

copies) 

Century Integrated Curriculum Schools and 

schools with IRFs. 

Collected at each event; compiled quarterly. 

Annually starting 2010-2011 

State Achievement Tests (STAR, CAHSEE) Annually 

Benchmark Assessments Every 6 weeks 

Data Management System Reports Every 6 weeks (2011, after migration to new 

data system) 

Technical Installation and Service Logs Collected monthly; compiled quarterly. 

Network Management Systems reports Quarterly status reports and annual trend 

report after 2011. 

Network Vendor(s) Reports on Contract Monthly after July 1, 2009 – January 2011. 

Deliverable 

Durable Goods Reports – Expenditures Quarterly 

Reports to Technology Funders Annual 

May 2009 94


C. PROCESS & FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATING RESULTS TO STAKEHOLDERS 

Technology Plan Leadership: The Assoc. Superintendent of Academics and Accountability, 

the Sr. Executive Director of 21 st Century Learning and Accountability, and the Chief Information 

Officer will have primary responsibility for the implementation of the Technology Master Plan in 

coordination with the Executive Director of Research, Planning and Accountability and the 

Assistant Superintendents of APD. 

The Equity-Centered Principals’ professional Learning Communities are the vehicle for 

developing principals as educational leaders and reform facilitators. In these communities 

principals receive professional development that will include integration of technology as a tool 

for school reform, participate in small planning communities and reflect on data to assess 

monitor towards their goals in the Balanced Score Cards. 

The Supervisor for Instructional Technology will be responsible for reporting to both Academic 

and Professional Development and Information Technology. He will also staff the Instructional 

Technology Advisory Committee and coordinate the technology integration professional 

development and support for the (a) Equity-Centered Principals Professional Learning 

Communities, (b) district and site technology curriculum and professional development 

leadership and (c) the site Teacher Technology Leaders and the Innovation Classroom 

Teachers. 

Balanced Score Cards: The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) are designed to ensure that the district 

departments and the schools are clear about and stay focused on a few common goals to 

improve student achievement as defined in the Strategic Plan. In year one the district office will 

use the BSC (and the BSC creation process) to: 

• Redefine and reorganize itself as a school site support organization based on the 

priorities presented in site scorecards. 

• Foster clear, mutual communication as to how schools will assess their own progress in 

achieving their BSC objectives, including the district wide Non-Negotiable Objectives. 

• Provide improved support in future years for creating a balanced scorecard. 

Program Management Initiative: Under the leadership of the Executive Director of Research, 

Planning and Accountability the district will finalize and implement the systems and tools for the 

Program Management Initiative in year one. The Initiative will address the impact of technology on 

the objectives of the Strategic Plan. 

In subsequent years the BSCs will provide a process and structure to monitor progress towards 

the Strategic Plan, to inform the Principals Equity-Centered Professional Learning Communities 

and school planning, and to make mid-course corrections. This year the central office 

departments will create BSCs to identify functions and align their resources and services to 

better support the effective school programs. (http://www.beyondthetalk.org) 

Process to Monitor Progress towards the Technology Master Plan: To operationalize the 

Master Plan for Technology the Information Technology Department (ITD) and the Department of 

Academics and Professional Development (APD) will prepare detailed resource project plans each 

year to meet the annual objectives and benchmarks. 

May 2009 95


The Instructional Technology Advisory Group (ITAG) is a committee composed of the CIO and 

representatives from Academics and Professional Development, Information Technology, and the 

schools and meets on a bi-monthly basis. ITAG will be responsible for overall monitoring of the 

Technology Master Plan. The Supervisor of Instructional Technology will be responsible for 

documenting the progress of the Technology Plan, will staff ITAG and serve as the liaison between 

the ITD and APD. The CIO will serve as the liaison between ITAG and the Superintendent’s Cabinet. 

The Supervisor of Instructional Technology will prepare quarterly reports on progress towards the 

plan’s objectives and benchmarks for ITAG. On behalf of the ITAG, the Supervisor of Instructional 

Technology will submit semi-annual reports to Associate Superintendent of APD, the CIO of ITD, and 

the Executive Director of Research, Planning and Accountability (RPA) who will oversee needed midcourse 

corrections. Annual reports will be submitted to the Superintendent’s Cabinet and to the 

Board of Education with recommendations for each year’s annual implementation plan. 

May 2009 96


Strand 8 – Collaborative Strategies for Adult Literacy 

The SFUSD offers a range of parent education programs that include English language development 

and literacy through the Departments of Migrant Education, SF School Alliance, and Parent 

Relations. Parent Relations recently initiated Project Inspire at nine schools that provides a series of 

nine workshops for parents, including a literacy component. The Department also coordinates with 

schools through their Parent Liaisons, whom the Department trains and support, to conduct site 

workshops on a wide range of subjects, including literacy. They have also entered into a partnership 

with the Mayor’s Office to provide training at Malcolm X Elementary School to provide training to 

residents of the city’s public housing in the Bayview Hunters Point area. 

City College of San Francisco is the largest provider of free and low cost programs for adult literacy 

as well as technology training, with eleven campuses located throughout the city and two specialized 

technology training centers: the Center for Applied Competitive Technologies and the School of 

Applied Science and Technology. City College offers classes at A.P. Giannini and James Lick 

Middle Schools. Each campus offers a range of literacy, English as a Second Language (ESL) and 

GED classes. 

Mission High School and the Beacon Centers located at schools sites offer evening and weekend 

classes for English language learners. As part of Project HOPE VI, adult literacy and job training 

programs are available at many of the housing facilities managed by the San Francisco Housing 

Authority. 

The district and SFCOE will continue the ongoing partnerships with City College of San 

Francisco, including housing campuses at school sites to make the programs more accessible 

to San Francisco families. 

The district’s Parent Relations Department has expanded its partnership with the SF Housing 

Authority, offering training for families in the city’s housing facilities. It is also working with the 

SF Public Libraries to provide Internet access and training in the use of the district’s web site 

and School Loop. 

While focusing on a city-wide comprehensive learning system for children and youth, SFUSD 

has joined the New Day for Learning Partnership with the San Francisco School Alliance, the 

San Francisco Department of Children, Youth and their Families, San Francisco Community of 

Opportunity and San Francisco Office of the Mayor. The long-term vision is to develop citywide 

policies and more effective partnerships to promote cohesive, protected pathways for learning 

from morning to night throughout the year. These plans will have to address the younger adults 

who are no longer in formal educational settings but who need opportunities to develop literacy 

and other basic skills. 

May 2009 97


STRAND 9 - EFFECTIVE RESEARCH BASED METHODS, STRATEGIES 

AND CRITERIA 

A. Relevant Research to Support Curricular and Professional 

Development Goals 

The Technology Master Plan 32 is driven by and details how technology will be used to 

implement the district’s Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan embraces a set of research-based 

core principles as the foundation for school transformation. These same core principles inform 

the Technology Master Plan: 

• Rich & Affirming Learning Environments 

• Empowering Pedagogy 

• Challenging & Relevant Curriculum 

• High Quality Instructional Resources 

• Valid & Comprehensive Assessment 

• High Quality Professional Preparation & Support 

• Powerful Family/Community Engagement 

• Advocacy-Oriented Administrative/Leadership Systems 

The Strategic Plan envisions a culturally and linguistically responsive, multilingual Pre-K-12 

21 st century curricular program in which powerful technology is used to engage all students and 

to foster 21 st century learning. The Strategic Plan defines the key concepts for reform: 

• 21 st Century Skills, Capabilities and Dispositions: Research identifies the skills 

needed for students to succeed in the 21 st century: 

o Academic competencies 

o Multilingual and cross-cultural competencies 

o Technological literacy 

o Communications skills 

o Aesthetic sensibility’ 

o Critical and creative thinking, reasons and solution seeking 

o Social environmental and civic responsibility 

o Strength of character 

http://www.21stcenturyskills.org 

http:www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/policy/cels/el4.html 

http://www.netTrekker.com 

http://www.metiri.com 

• Integrated, Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Learning is best accomplished when 

information is presented in meaningful, connected patterns that link multiple curricular 

areas. 

http://suzyred.com/integratedcurriculum.html 

32 “Beyond the Talk: Taking Action to Educate Every Student Now,” San Francisco Unified School District. 2008. 

http://portal.sfusd.edu/template/default.cfm?page=home.strategic_plan 

May 2009 98


http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/8/c016/html 

http://vocserve.berkeley.edu/ST2.1/TowardanIntegrated.html 

http://www.neiu.edu/~middle/Modules/science%20mods/amazon%20componenets/A 

mazonComponent3.html 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_Integration 

• Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pedagogy: A pedagogy that 

acknowledges, responds to, and celebrates fundamental cultures and languages offers 

full, equitable access to education for students from all cultures and language groups. 

http://www.nameorg/resources/defining_multicultural_education.htm 

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/ 

http://www.nabe.org/ 

http://rethingingschools.org/special_reports/bilingual/resources.shtml 

http://www.bilingualeducation.org/ 

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ 

• Career Pathways: Career Academies motivate students to think about their personal 

careers and integrate the development of professional skills when the academies 

incorporate small learning communities, offer a college preparation curriculum with a 

career them and have meaningful partnerships with the professions. 

http://www.mdrc.org/publichations/366/overview.html 

http://www.upjohninst.org/publications/ch1/maxwell-rubin.pdf 

http://www.naf.org/cps/rde/xchg 

The Technology Master Plan defines how technology will be used to support these 

principles and key concepts. 

Technology Integration into the Curriculum: Research shows that effective integration of 

technology into an integrated, interdisciplinary curriculum to develop 21 st century learning skills 

and improves students’ performance. Technology is effective when: 

• Technology is incorporated as a routine part of the learning environment 

• Technology use includes 21st century skills that will be required for students to thrive in 

the future. 

• Standards-aligned electronic learning resources are utilized that enhance the adopted 

curriculum appropriate to support student achievement. 

• Electronic technologies are used to access and exchange information. 

• Technology tools assist students with productivity, research, problem solving, higherorder 

thinking, and decision-making activities related to learning. 

• Students are allowed to choose and use appropriate technology tools to obtain 

information, analyze, synthesize, and assimilate the information, and then to present it in 

an acceptable manner. 

• Technology is used to engage students in activities that are difficult, if not impossible, to 

replicate without technology, such as simulations. 

• Supports student performance of authentic tasks, which usually involve multiple 

disciplines and are challenging in their complexity. 

May 2009 99


“An Overview of Technology and Education Reform,” a research project conducted by 

SRI International and sponsored by the Office of Educational Research and 

Improvement, US Department of Education. 

“Technology in Schools: Suggestions, Tools and Guidelines for Assessing Technology in 

Elementary and Secondary Education.” National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 2002. 

“Engage 21 st Century Skills for 21 st Century Learners.” North Central Regional 

Educational Laboratory (NCREL) & Metri Group, http://www.nrcel.org//engage. 

Kimble, C. Policy Brief- The Impact of Technology on Learning: Making Sense of the 

Research. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, Aurora, CO. 1999. 

1 Wenglinsky, H. “Does It Compute? The Relationship Between Educational 

Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics.” Princeton, NJ: Educational 

Testing Service, Policy and Information Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction 

Service No. ED425101). 1998. 

Horizon Report: 2008 Edition, New Media Consortium and EduCause Learning 

Initiative. 2009 

Professional Development to Integrate Technology into a 21 st Century Interdisciplinary 

Curriculum: Professional development must be embedded in a long term change process and 

incorporate ongoing, rigorous in-service in content and pedagogy, time for reflection and peer 

collaboration, coaching and mentoring and ready access to learning resources and expertise. If 

technology is to be an effective tool for learning, then technology training must be integral to that 

entire professional development process rather than treated as a stand-alone subject. 

Unlike action plans generated from the top down, teachers are invested in the solutions they 

generated from their own collaborative inquiry (around student data). 

Office of Technology Assessment 1995 (http://www.wws.princeton.org) 

Schmidt, W., McKnight, C. and Raizen, S., “A Splintered Vision: An Investigation of US 

Science and Mathematics Education,” US National Research Center for the 3rd International 

Mathematics and Science Study, Michigan State University, 1997. 

Sparks, D., “A Paradigm Shift in Staff Development,” Journal of Staff Development, Fall 1994, 

Vol 15 (4). 

National Staff Development Council Standards for effective Staff Development, 1997. 

Brand, G., “What Research Says: Training Teachers for Using Technology,” Journal of Staff 

Development, 19(1). 1997. http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/brand191.cfm 

Love. N. Taking Data to New Depths. Journal of Staff Development. Oxford, OH: 

National Staff Development Council, 2004, Fall. 

Infrastructure to Build the Foundation for 21 st Century Learning: The Technology Master Plan 

calls for the upgrade district infrastructure to provide wired and wireless broadband connections to 

every classroom in SFUSD as the first step in laying the foundation for a 21 st century classroom 

“without walls.” The Plan defines the strategies to ensure equitable access to the tools that best 

engage students in the learning goals, improve operability and functionality, and reduce total costs of 

ownership. The Plan also calls for the establishment or re-alignment of technology usage policies 

and standards to integrate technology into the institutional fabric of a district. 

From National Center for Technology in Education (NCTE), 2005. 

http://www.ncte.ie/ICTAdviceSupport/AdviceSheets/WirelessNetworks/ 

May 2009 100


Weil, M. “Follow the Money,” Scholastic Administrator, February 2005, pp. 37-40/ 

Jones, B.F, Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen. C. “Plugging in Choosing and Using 

Educational Technology.” Washington DC: Council for Educational Development and 

Research and North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. 

1995http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/edtalk/toc.htm 

McNabb, M., Hawkes, M., & Rouk, Ü. Critical Issues in Evaluating 

the Effectiveness of Technology. Paper written for the U.S. Department of 

Education Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology, Washington, DC. (1999, 

August). 

B. TECHNOLOGY TO EXTEND THE CURRICULUM, INCLUDING DISTANCE LEARNING 

TECHNOLOGIES: 

One of the top priorities of the Superintendent and the SFUSD leadership is the implementation of a 

comprehensive system of “any time, any where” virtual learning opportunities for students. Currently, 

SFUSD offers limited distance learning opportunities to help students prepare for the CAHSEE and 

to make up credits for graduation. A partnership with San Francisco City College allow SFUSD 

students to enroll in the distance learning courses offered by the college. Web-based advanced 

courses, developed by Stanford University and by the University of Connecticut, are being introduced 

to enrich and accelerate student learning. The goal is to move away from distance learning for 

interventions and remediation and focus on giving students the opportunity to accelerate their 

learning and to engage in AP courses and other challenging curricula through web-based 

coursework and through video-conferencing and video-streaming, which will become a reality once 

the network upgrade is completed. 

The plan also calls for the use of distance learning to increase professional development 

opportunities for teachers and administrators and to support equity-centered professional learning 

communities. Currently, SFUSD uses technology, such as Sharepoint, to support teacher 

collaborations and to supplement face-to-face professional development. The goal, however, is to 

provide virtual learning opportunities for teachers and administrators not only to cut costs and to give 

staff flexibility but also to enrich SFUSD professional development, to give teachers access to outside 

expertise and to allow them to differentiate or customize their own professional development plans to 

address specific needs. Tools, such as web-based courses, video-streaming, video-conferencing and 

the use of SharePoint and other on-line collaboration tools will be used to develop a system of virtual 

professional development. 

May 2009 101


School Instructional Classrooms 

Instructional 

Instructional Laptops 

Appendix A 


California Technology Survey 2008 - Hardware, Location and Connectivity Findings 

Age of Computers Location Video Wireless 

1 year old 

2 years old 

3 years old 

3-4 years olds 

May 2009 102 

More than 4 years 

Classrooms 

Computer Labs 

Library/Media Center 

Laptop carts 

Other locations 

Specific Loc 

Computers to Purchse '08 

Computers to Retire '09 

Handheld devices 

Student Response 

Conference Connectivity 

High Schools 

Abraham 

Lincoln High 93 550 70 50 35 80 10 375 350 100 40 20 portable labs 40 10 35 0 0 No Yes 550 Yes No No Yes 

Balboa High 65 384 81 74 11 2 3 294 131 157 29 25 Offices 42 74 70 0 66 No Yes 384 No 

Downtown High 13 139 34 25 22 34 28 30 64 22 26 20 Offices 7 5 10 0 0 No Yes 139 Yes No No Yes 

Galileo High 84 574 115 85 100 30 30 329 391 133 50 0 0 0 85 85 25 1 Yes 1 0 Yes 601 Yes Yes Yes No 

George 

Washington 

High 101 390 71 45 28 47 150 120 145 142 25 40 Assigned to Teachers 38 50 100 0 2 No Yes 390 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Ida B. Wells 

High 15 70 2 13 1 10 0 46 39 27 4 0 0 0 5 2 0 70 No Yes 70 No 

Independence 

High 6 64 31 37 0 0 7 20 32 19 6 7 not applicable (n.a.) 0 0 0 0 0 No Yes 47 No 

International 

Studies 

Academy at 

Enola Maxwell 33 150 5 30 50 50 20 0 60 60 30 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 No Yes 0 No 

John O'Connell 

Alternative High 38 300 2 45 0 2 0 253 174 110 16 0 0 10 0 0 Yes 1 0 Yes 300 Yes Yes Yes No 

Videoconferencing 

Room-based VC 

Desktop VC 

Electrical Cap 

Broadband 

Wireless 

WirelessAdmin 

WirelessTeachers 

WirelessStudents


June Jordan 

School for 

Equity 20 80 20 0 20 20 40 0 20 60 0 0 20 0 0 0 No No 80 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Lowell High 86 379 60 75 60 60 80 100 159 120 60 40 30 30 0 300 No No 30 No 

Mission High 

Newcomer 

85 291 5 102 77 35 26 51 70 183 33 5 0 30 30 0 0 No No 291 No 

High 

Phillip and Sala 

Burton 

17 92 1 2 3 1 1 84 32 39 14 1 main office 6 0 0 0 0 No No 92 No 

Academic High 

Raoul 

Wallenberg 

70 455 30 30 0 0 35 390 191 221 8 35 72 30 0 0 No Yes 455 No 

Traditional High 

School of the 

26 105 4 40 65 0 0 0 30 30 35 0 Offices 10 30 0 0 2 No No 105 No 

Arts 

Thurgood 

78 175 5 40 35 35 40 25 100 60 15 0 40 20 0 0 No Yes 175 No 

Marshall High 

Elementary 

Schools 

Alamo 

45 293 16 40 7 5 0 241 127 123 11 0 32 32 40 30 0 0 No Yes 293 No 

Elementary 

Alice Fong Yu 

28 55 0 13 10 10 12 10 45 0 7 0 office 3 30 0 0 0 No Yes 55 No 

Elementary 

Alvarado 

28 135 26 30 5 0 0 100 110 0 5 20 0 0 10 10 0 0 No No 135 No 

Elementary 

Argonne 

26 95 0 0 0 0 66 29 67 27 1 0 0 15 0 0 No No 90 No 

Elementary 

Bessie 

19 105 2 25 1 0 5 74 69 35 0 0 Community Room 1 1 0 0 0 No Yes 78 No 

Carmichael 

Parent Room, Literacy 

Elementary 

Bret Harte 

28 72 1 7 40 0 25 0 45 20 0 0 Specialist, Office 7 35 0 0 1 No No 72 No 

Elementary 

Brown, Jr., 

(Willie L.) 

14 99 0 0 0 29 0 70 71 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Yes 99 No 

Elementary 

Bryant 

18 61 11 6 7 6 1 41 12 31 7 11 0 0 0 0 No Yes 61 No 

Elementary 

Buena Vista 

13 45 10 0 0 0 0 0 3 22 4 10 6 6 3 5 0 0 No Yes 45 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Alt. Elementary 

Cesar Chavez 

18 60 20 15 0 0 0 45 57 0 3 0 0 15 18 0 0 No Yes 20 Yes Yes Yes No 

Elementary 

Charles Drew 

College 

Preparatory 

22 63 4 4 1 35 0 23 20 25 3 0 Other 15 20 0 0 0 Yes 2 0 No 63 Yes Yes Yes No 

Academy 

Chinese 

20 84 20 0 0 2 20 62 28 30 3 20 Office 3 0 32 0 0 No No 70 No 

Education 11 32 1 6 4 0 0 22 13 16 2 1 n/a 0 0 13 0 0 No No 34 No 

May 2009 103


Center 

Claire Lilienthal 

Elementary 29 163 47 61 28 46 1 27 98 11 8 35 Admin(5), Spec Ed (6) 11 3 4 0 98 Yes 11 75 Yes 163 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Clarendon 

Alternative 

Elementary 24 125 18 18 0 0 0 107 83 24 0 18 10 10 0 0 No No 0 No 

Cleveland 

Elementary 16 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 No Yes 16 Yes Yes No No 

Commodore 

Sloat 

Elementary 18 45 15 18 0 18 0 9 27 0 3 15 12 4 0 0 No Yes 45 No 

Daniel Webster 


Dianne 

Feinstein 

Elementary 17 76 0 1 3 0 0 72 52 0 21 0 Main Office 3 1 0 0 0 No Yes 76 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Edward R. 

Taylor 

Elementary 30 127 1 2 0 0 75 50 122 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 No Yes 90 Yes No No Yes 

El Dorado 

Elementary 17 48 2 0 0 0 0 48 45 0 0 0 office 3 2 0 0 0 No Yes 45 No 

Excelsior 

Middle 14 71 0 30 0 0 0 41 11 60 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 0 No Yes 89 Yes No No No 

Fairmount 

Elementary 21 39 3 2 14 1 10 12 32 0 4 0 Literacy Specilaist 3 0 0 0 0 No Yes 34 No 

Francis Scott 

Key Elementary 28 198 12 8 21 20 14 135 158 32 2 0 Office 6 6 0 80 80 Yes 0 1 Yes 180 No 

Frank 

McCoppin 


Garfield 

Elementary 15 46 0 0 0 5 10 31 42 0 2 0 Resource Room 2 0 0 0 0 No Yes 60 No 

George 

Peabody 

Elementary 13 36 3 0 7 0 0 29 29 0 5 0 office 2 3 1 0 0 No No 36 Yes Yes Yes No 

George R. 

Moscone 

Elementary 16 78 2 0 0 0 0 78 42 32 2 0 Office 2 0 0 0 0 No Yes 78 No 

George 

Washington 

Carver 

Elementary 16 81 32 0 10 0 30 41 18 27 2 30 support staff offices 4 0 0 0 0 No Yes 81 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Glen Park 

Elementary 21 73 3 3 0 33 0 37 33 32 5 0 office 3 0 10 0 0 No Yes 73 Yes Yes Yes No 

Gordon J. Lau 

Elementary 31 176 30 0 25 15 0 136 140 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Yes 0 Yes Yes Yes No 

Grattan 

Elementary 18 80 3 3 1 9 20 47 36 40 3 1 3 3 0 0 Yes 1 1 Yes 57 Yes Yes Yes No 

May 2009 104


Guadalupe 

Elementary 

Harvey Milk 

Civil Rights 

21 35 10 0 0 0 0 25 9 25 1 0 0 5 0 0 No Yes 35 Yes No Yes No 

Elementary 

Hillcrest 

11 53 3 0 1 1 1 50 40 10 0 0 admin 3 0 10 0 0 No No 53 No 

Elementary 

Jean Parker 

26 112 3 1 8 8 10 85 71 31 5 0 Resource room 5 0 8 0 0 No Yes 98 Yes Yes No No 

Elementary 

Jefferson 

13 80 1 1 0 0 39 40 43 23 1 1 Office/Storage 12 0 6 0 0 No Yes 60 Yes Yes Yes No 

Elementary 

John Muir 

22 75 20 0 5 10 20 40 53 0 2 18 Office 2 0 5 0 50 No No 75 Yes No Yes No 

Elementary 

John Yehall 

Chin 

15 102 0 0 0 5 30 67 57 30 15 0 5 5 0 0 No Yes 95 No 

Elementary 

Jose Ortega 

13 61 1 10 11 10 0 30 20 40 0 1 10 3 0 0 Yes 0 40 Yes 50 No 

Elementary 

Junipero Serra 

13 26 2 0 1 0 0 25 18 0 6 0 Pricipals closet 2 0 0 0 0 No Yes 26 No 

Elementary 

Lafayette 

16 75 4 10 0 0 2 63 52 21 0 1 Offices 1 6 5 0 0 No Yes 75 Yes Yes Yes No 

Elementary 

Lakeshore 

Alternative 

28 108 2 0 4 0 0 104 65 34 3 0 Office Area 6 3 5 0 0 No No 104 No 

Elementary 

Lawton 

Alternative 

26 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 16 8 0 Offices 3 0 0 0 0 No No 33 Yes Yes Yes No 

Elementary 

Leonard R. 

Flynn 

27 116 0 23 0 0 30 56 53 53 2 0 office 8 5 0 1 1 No Yes 116 No 

Elementary 

Longfellow 

26 85 30 0 0 0 0 85 36 0 15 30 school office 4 0 30 0 0 No Yes 92 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Elementary 

Malcolm X 

29 95 4 20 2 3 15 55 85 0 5 0 Offices 5 20 10 0 0 No Yes 0 No 

Academy 

Marshall 

8 23 1 1 0 0 10 12 10 9 1 0 Front Offices 3 8 0 0 0 No Yes 22 No 

Elementary 

McKinley 

14 55 2 0 22 0 0 33 28 22 5 0 2 0 0 0 Yes 0 2 Yes 55 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Elementary 

Miraloma 

15 65 8 0 0 4 6 55 40 0 10 8 offices 7 0 3 0 0 No Yes 60 No 

Elementary 

Mission 

Education 

19 55 3 2 0 0 20 33 18 34 1 0 office 2 0 23 0 0 No Yes 55 Yes Yes Yes No 

Center 10 25 1 0 3 0 12 10 17 0 8 0 none 0 8 5 0 0 No No 22 No 

Monroe 

office, irf room, parent 

Elementary 

New Traditions 

24 50 3 5 8 0 4 33 17 21 1 0 laisions 11 4 10 0 1 No Yes 46 Yes Yes Yes Yes 


May 2009 105


Paul Revere 

Elementary 31 91 17 47 0 0 0 44 44 10 20 17 0 0 3 0 0 0 Yes 0 47 Yes 91 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Redding 


Robert Louis 

Stevenson 

Elementary 24 88 30 22 20 15 0 31 58 0 30 0 0 0 9 20 0 0 No No 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Rooftop 

Elementary 30 162 21 21 2 29 55 55 113 21 7 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes 0 0 Yes 162 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Rosa Parks 

Elementary 19 21 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 Yes 20 0 Yes 25 No 

San Francisco 

Community 

Alternative 16 31 1 31 0 0 0 0 15 0 16 0 0 0 0 15 No Yes 31 Yes Yes Yes No 

Sanchez 

Elementary 20 81 30 22 0 0 0 59 57 22 2 0 12 0 0 49 Yes 0 22 Yes 76 No 

Sheridan 

Elementary 25 50 10 0 0 0 0 40 19 30 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 49 No Yes 30 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Sherman 

Elementary 23 121 6 0 1 0 24 96 75 32 5 6 Office, principal 3 0 0 0 0 No Yes 98 No 

Spring Valley 

Elementary 19 68 2 0 1 0 0 67 32 34 2 0 0 0 25 33 0 0 No No 64 No 

Starr King 

Elementary 13 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 No Yes 20 No 

Sunnyside 

Elementary 17 38 0 0 0 0 0 38 30 4 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 No Yes 24 No 

Sunset 

Elementary 15 96 51 21 47 2 2 24 38 0 4 51 Office 3 75 8 0 0 No No 43 Yes No Yes No 

Sutro 

Elementary 12 48 3 2 2 30 12 2 15 30 0 0 Office support 3 3 0 0 0 No Yes 48 Yes Yes Yes No 

Tenderloin 

Community 22 90 3 0 3 10 10 67 54 21 6 0 office/family room 9 10 10 0 0 No Yes 90 No 

Ulloa 


Visitacion 

Valley 


West Portal 


William L. Cobb 

Elementary 12 57 1 1 0 0 0 56 39 13 1 1 office 3 1 0 0 0 No No 54 Yes Yes Yes No 

Yick Wo 

Elementary 14 27 4 0 4 0 0 23 9 18 0 0 0 0 17 5 0 0 No Yes 27 Yes Yes Yes No 

Middle 

Schools 

A. P. Giannini 

Middle 52 190 40 35 0 30 0 125 77 100 13 0 0 25 0 0 Yes 0 0 Yes 190 No 

May 2009 106


Francisco 

Middle 35 120 3 31 0 0 0 89 30 51 16 1 CTIS office 22 31 20 0 0 No No 100 No 

Herbert Hoover 

Middle 45 194 99 4 12 9 0 169 52 31 12 99 40 20 0 0 No No 193 No 

James Denman 

Middle 44 123 20 20 0 0 1 102 49 68 5 0 Parent/Teacher Liaison 1 0 0 0 123 No Yes 123 Yes No No Yes 

Martin Luther 

King Jr. 

Academic 

Middle 26 123 15 8 22 32 0 61 50 62 11 0 32 32 0 0 No Yes 123 Yes Yes Yes No 

Roosevelt 

Middle 30 142 21 21 45 30 35 11 25 80 16 21 10 20 0 0 Yes 5 10 Yes 142 No 

Visitacion 

Valley Middle 21 107 27 0 0 0 0 0 37 30 10 15 Administration 15 0 10 0 0 No Yes 107 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Aptos Middle 36 118 20 30 54 33 1 0 20 67 4 20 offices 7 0 0 60 60 No Yes 118 No 

Everett Middle 35 200 5 75 0 0 0 125 77 105 18 0 5 0 0 0 No Yes 200 No 

Horace Mann 

Middle 23 152 30 30 0 30 0 92 50 90 12 0 30 0 30 1 No No 152 No 

James Lick 

Middle 30 67 2 2 29 0 15 21 30 29 6 2 0 10 0 0 No Yes 67 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Marina Middle 45 116 13 0 0 0 0 116 78 27 1 10 0 25 0 10 No Yes 116 No 

Presidio Middle 53 174 9 44 9 10 0 111 65 82 10 9 Admin 8 44 15 0 166 No Yes 174 No 

2754 11731 1439 1544 1012 961 1128 6740 6,085 3,656 891 697 402 1139 1041 196 1245 14 0 0 71 10268 41 33 34 18 

May 2009 107

Appendix B-1 Wide Area Network 2009-2011 


May 2009 108


Appendix B-2 

FIBER WAN TIMELINE 2009 - 2011 

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 

MAIN OFFICE HUB MARSHALL HUB LINCOLN HUB LINCOLN HUB 

Carmichael ES Brown ES Aptos MS Alvarado ES 

Carmichael 6-7 Bryant ES Balboa HS Clarendon ES 

Chin ES Burton HS Denman MS Hoover MS 

Chinese Ed Center Chavez ES Feinstein ES Jefferson ES 

ES 

Civic Center HS Cleveland ES Giannini MS Lakeshore ES 

Downtown HS Drew ES Grattan ES Lawton ES 

Everett MS Fairmont ES Independence HS Principals Center Court 

School 

Francisco MS Flynn ES Key ES Rooftop ES (Burnett) 

Galileo HS Harte ES Longfellow ES Rooftop ES (Mayeda) 

Garfield ES Hillcrest ES Lowell HS SFUSD School Health 

Prog. 

ISA HS Hilltop ES Miraloma ES Sheridan ES 

Lau ES Jordan HS Newcomer HS Sloat ES 

Marshall Es King, ML ES Ortega ES SOTA HS 

Mission HS King, Starr ES Sunnyside ES Stevenson ES 

Muir ES Lick MS MARSHALL HUB Sunset ES 

O’Connell HS Malcolm X ES Buena Vista ES Ulloa ES 

Parker ES Mann MS Carver ES West Portal ES 

Parks ES Milk ES El Dorado ES Woodside Court School 

SFUSD – APD Monroe ES Glen Park ES Yu ES 

SFUSD - Acctg Moscone ES Guadalupe ES WASHINGTON HUB 

Tenderloin Comm. 

ES 

Revere ES Mission Ed Center ES Alamo ES 

Wells HS SF Community ES Serra ES Cobb ES 

Wo ES Taylor ES SFUSD 

Lafayette ES 

Buildings/Grounds 

Yu ES Vis Valley ES SFUSD Transportation Lilienthal ES (K-2) 

Vis Valley MS Webster ES Lilienthal (3-8) 

MAIN OFFICE HUB MAIN OFFICE HUB Marina MS 

McKinley ES Mission HS McCoppin ES 

Redding ES New Traditions ES 

Sanchez ES Peabody ES 

SFUSD Nutrition 

Presidio MS 

Services 

Sherman ES Roosevelt MS 

Spring Valley ES SFUSD Child Devel. 

Program 

Sutro ES 

Wallenberg HS 

May 2009 109


Appendix C – Criteria for EETT Funded Technology Plans 

In order to be approved, a technology plan needs to have “Adequately Addressed” each 

of the following criteria: 

1. PLAN DURATION 

CRITERION 

• For corresponding EETT Requirements, see the EETT Technology Plan 

Requirement (Appendix D). 

• Include this form (Appendix C) with “Page in District Plan” completed at 

the end of your technology plan. 

The plan should guide the 

district’s use of education 

technology for the next three 

to five years. (For a new 

plan, can include technology 

plan development in the first 

year) 

2. STAKEHOLDERS 

CRITERION 

Corresponding EETT 

Requirement(s): 7 

and 11 (Appendix D). 

Description of 

how a variety of 

stakeholders 

from within the 

school district 

and the 

community-atlarge 

participated in 

the planning 

process. 

Page in 

District 


Example of Adequately 

Addressed 

5 The technology plan describes the 

districts use of education 

technology for the next three to 

five years. (For new plan, 

description of technology plan 

development in the first year is 

acceptable). 

Specific start and end dates are 

Page in 

District 


recorded (7/1/xx to 6/30/xx). 


Addressed 

5-9 The planning team consisted of 

representatives who will implement 

the plan. If a variety of 

stakeholders did not assist with the 

development of the plan, a 

description of why they were not 

involved is included. 

Example of Not 

Adequately 

Addressed 

The plan is less 

than three years 

or more than five 

years in length. 

Plan duration is 

2008-11. 

Not 

Adequately 

Addressed 

Little evidence is 

included that 

shows that the 

district actively 

sought 

participation from 

a variety of 

stakeholders. 

May 2009 110


3. CURRICULUM 

COMPONENT 

CRITERIA 


Requirement(s): 1, 2, 

3, 8, 10, and 12 

(Appendix D). 

a. Description of 

teachers’ and 

students’ current 

access to 

technology tools 

both during the 

school day and 

outside of school 

hours. 

b. Description of the 

district’s current use 

of hardware and 

software to support 

teaching and 

learning. 

c. Summary of the 

district’s curricular 

goals that are 

supported by this 

tech plan. 

d. List of clear goals, 

measurable 

objectives, annual 

benchmarks, and an 

implementation plan 

for using technology 

to improve teaching 

and learning by 

supporting the 

district curricular 

goals. 

e. List of clear goals, 

measurable 




detailing how and 

when students will 

acquire the 

technology skills and 

information literacy 

Page in 

District 



Addressed 

10-14 The plan describes the 

technology access available 

in the classrooms, 

library/media centers, or labs 

for all students and teachers. 


typical frequency and type of 

use (technology 

skills/information 

literacy/integrated into the 

curriculum). 

23-28 The plan summarizes the 

district’s curricular goals that 

are supported by the plan 

and referenced in district 

document(s). 

32-34 The plan delineates clear 

goals, measurable 


benchmarks, and a clear 

implementation plan for 

using technology to support 

the district’s curriculum goals 

and academic content 

standards to improve 

learning. 


goal(s), measurable 

objective(s), annual 



detailing how and when 

students will acquire 

technology skills and 

information literacy skills. 


Adequately Addressed 

The plan explains 

technology access in terms 

of a student-to-computer 

ratio, but does not explain 

where access is available, 

who has access, and when 

various students and 

teachers can use the 

technology. 

The plan cites district policy 

regarding use of 

technology, but provides no 

information about its actual 

use. 

The plan does not 

summarize district 

curricular goals. 

The plan suggests how 

technology will be used, but 

is not specific enough to 

know what action needs to 

be taken to accomplish the 

goals. 


students will acquire 

technology skills, but is not 

specific enough to 

determine what action 

needs to be taken to 

accomplish the goals. 

May 2009 111


skills needed to 

succeed in the 

classroom and the 

workplace. 

f. List of goals and an 

implementation plan that 

describe how the district 

will address the 

appropriate and ethical 

use of information 

technology in the 

classroom so that 

students can distinguish 

lawful from unlawful 

uses of copyrighted 

works, including the 

following topics: the 

concept and purpose of 

both copyright and fair 

use; distinguishing 

lawful from unlawful 

downloading and peerto-peer 

file sharing; and 

avoiding plagiarism (AB 

307) 

g. List of goals and an 

implementation plan that 

describe how the district 

will address Internet 

safety, including how to 

protect online privacy 

and avoid online 

predators. (AB 307) 

h. Description of or goals 

about the district policy 

or practices that ensure 

equitable technology 

access for all students. 

i. List of clear goals, 

measurable objectives, 

annual benchmarks, and 

an implementation plan 

to use technology to 

34-35 The plan describes or 

delineates clear goals 

outlining how students will 

learn about the concept, 

purpose, and significance of 

the ethical use of 

information technology 

including copyright, fair use, 

plagiarism and the 

implications of illegal file 

sharing and/or downloading 

(as stated in AB 307). 

34-35 The plan describes or 

delineates clear goals 

outlining how students will 

be educated about Internet 

safety (as stated in AB 307). 


policy or delineates clear 

goals and measurable 

objectives about the policy 

or practices that ensure 

equitable technology access 

for all students. The policy 

or practices clearly support 

accomplishing the plan’s 

goals. 






The plan suggests that 

students will be educated 

in the ethical use of the 

Internet, but is not specific 

enough to determine what 

actions will be taken to 

accomplish the goals. 

The plan suggests Internet 

safety education but is not 


determine what actions will 

be taken to accomplish the 

goals. 

The plan does not 

describe policies or goals 

that result in equitable 

technology access for all 

students. Suggests how 

technology will be used, 

but is not specific enough 

to know what action needs 

to be taken to accomplish 

the goals. 






May 2009 112


make student record 

keeping and assessment 

more efficient and 

supportive of teachers’ 

efforts to meet 

individual student 

academic needs. 

j. List of clear goals, 


annual benchmarks, and 

an implementation plan 

to use technology to 

improve two-way 

communication between 

home and school. 

k. Describe the process 

that will be used to 

monitor the Curricular 

Component (Section 3d- 

3j) goals, objectives, 

benchmarks, and 

planned implementation 

activities including roles 

and responsibilities. 

4. PROFESSIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

COMPONENT 

CRITERIA 


Requirement(s): 5 and 12 

(Appendix D). 

a. Summary of the 

teachers’ and 

administrators’ current 

technology proficiency 

and integration skills 

and needs for 

professional 

development. 

b. List of clear goals, 


annual benchmarks, 

and an implementation 

plan for providing 

professional 

using technology to support 

the district’s student recordkeeping 

and assessment 

efforts. 






using technology to improve 

two-way communication 

between home and school. 

40-41 The monitoring process, 

roles, and responsibilities 

are described in sufficient 

detail. 

Page in 

District 



Addressed 

42-52 The plan provides a clear 

summary of the teachers’ and 

administrators’ current 

technology proficiency and 

integration skills and needs 

for professional development. 

The findings are summarized 

in the plan by discrete skills 

that include CTC Standard 9 

and 16 proficiencies. 






providing teachers and 

the goals. 






the goals. 

The monitoring process 

either is absent, or lacks 

detail regarding procedures, 

roles, and responsibilities. 


Adequately 

Addressed 

Description of current 

level of staff expertise is 

too general or relates 

only to a limited segment 

of the district’s teachers 

and administrators in the 

focus areas or does not 

relate to the focus areas, 

i.e., only the fourth grade 

teachers when grades 

four to eight are the 

focus grade levels. 

The plan speaks only 

generally of professional 

development and is not 


ensure that teachers and 

administrators will have 

May 2009 113


development 

opportunities based on 

your district needs 

assessment data (4a) 

and the Curriculum 

Component objectives 

(Sections 3d through 3j) 

of the plan. 

c. Describe the process 


monitor the 

Professional 

Development (Section 

4b) goals, objectives, 

benchmarks, and 

planned implementation 

activities including roles 

and responsibilities. 

5. INFRASTRUCTURE, 

HARDWARE, 

TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT, AND 

SOFTWARE 

COMPONENT 

CRITERIA 


Requirement(s): 6 and 12 

(Appendix D). 

a. Describe the existing 

hardware, Internet 

access, electronic 

learning resources, 

and technical support 

already in the district 


support the Curriculum 

and Professional 

Development 

Components (Sections 

3 & 4) of the plan. 

b. Describe the 

technology hardware, 

electronic learning 

resources, networking 

and 

telecommunications 

infrastructure, physical 

administrators with sustained, 

ongoing professional 

development necessary to 

reach the Curriculum 

Component objectives 

(sections 3d through 3j) of the 

plan. 

58 The monitoring process, 

roles, and responsibilities are 

described in sufficient detail. 

Page in 

District 


Example of 

Adequately 

Addressed 

59-62 The plan clearly 

summarizes the existing 

technology hardware, 

electronic learning 

resources, networking and 

telecommunication 

infrastructure, and 

technical support to 

support the 

implementation of the 

Curriculum and 


Components. 

62-65 The plan 

provides a 

clear summary 

and list of the 

technology 

hardware, 

electronic 

the necessary training to 

implement the 

Curriculum Component. 



detail regarding who is 

responsible and what is 

expected. 


Adequately Addressed 

The inventory of equipment is 

so general that it is difficult to 

determine what must be 

acquired to implement the 

Curriculum and Professional 

Development Components. 

The summary of current 

technical support is missing 

or lacks sufficient detail. 

The plan includes a 

description or list of hardware, 

infrastructure, and other 

technology necessary to 

implement the plan, but there 

doesn’t seem to be any real 

relationship between the 

May 2009 114


plant modifications, 

and technical support 

needed by the district’s 

teachers, students, and 

administrators to 

support the activities in 

the Curriculum and 

Professional 

Development 

Components of the 

plan. 

c. List of clear annual 

benchmarks and a 

timeline for obtaining 

the hardware, 

infrastructure, learning 

resources and 

technical support 

required to support the 

other plan components 

as identified in Section 

5b. 

d. Describe the process 


monitor Section 5b & 

the annual benchmarks 

and timeline of 

activities including 

roles and 

responsibilities. 

6. FUNDING AND 

BUDGET 

COMPONENT 

CRITERIA 

learning 

resources, 

networking 

and 

telecommunic 

ations 

infrastructure, 

physical plant 

modifications, 

and technical 

support the 

district will 

need to 

support the 

implementatio 

n of the 

district’s 

Curriculum 

and 

Professional 

Development 

Components. 

66-69 The annual 

benchmarks 

and timeline 

are specific 

and realistic. 

Teachers and 

administrators 

implementing 

the plan can 

easily discern 

what needs to 

be acquired or 

repurposed, 

by whom, and 

when. 

69-70 The 

monitoring 

process, roles, 

and 

responsibilities 

are described 

in sufficient 

detail. 

Page in 

District 



Addressed 

activities in the Curriculum 


Development Components 

and the listed equipment. 

Future technical support 

needs have not been 

addressed or do not relate to 

the needs of the Curriculum 


Development Components. 

The annual benchmarks and 

timeline are either absent or 

so vague that it would be 

difficult to determine what 

needs to be acquired or 

repurposed, by whom, and 

when. 

The monitoring process either 

is absent, or lacks detail 

regarding who is responsible 

and what is expected. 


Adequately 

Addressed 

May 2009 115



Requirement(s): 7 & 13, 

(Appendix D) 

a. List established and 

potential funding 

sources. 

b. Estimate annual 

implementation costs 

for the term of the 

plan. 

c. Describe the district’s 

replacement policy for 

obsolete equipment. 

d. Describe the process 


monitor Ed Tech 

funding, 

implementation costs 

and new funding 

opportunities and to 

adjust budgets as 

necessary. 

71-74 The plan clearly describes 

resources that are available or 

could be obtained to 

implement the plan. 

74-84 Cost estimates are reasonable 

and address the total cost of 

ownership, including the costs 

to implement the curricular, 

professional development, 

infrastructure, hardware, 

technical support, and 

electronic learning resource 

needs identified in the plan. 

85-86 Plan recognizes that 

equipment will need to be 

replaced and outlines a 

realistic replacement plan that 

will support the Curriculum 

and Professional Development 

Components. 

86 The monitoring process, roles, 

and responsibilities are 

described in sufficient detail. 

Resources to implement 

the plan are not clearly 

identified or are so 

general as to be useless. 

Cost estimates are 

unrealistic, lacking, or are 

not sufficiently detailed to 

determine if the total cost 

of ownership is 

addressed. 

Replacement policy is 

either missing or vague. 

It is not clear that the 

replacement policy could 

be implemented. 



detail regarding who is 

responsible and what is 

expected. 

May 2009 116


7. MONITORING AND 

EVALUATION 

COMPONENT 

CRITERIA 


Requirement(s): 11 

(Appendix D). 

a. Describe the process 

for evaluating the 

plan’s overall 

progress and impact 

on teaching and 

learning. 

b. Schedule for 

evaluating the effect 

of plan 

implementation. 

c. Describe the process 

and frequency of 

communicating 

evaluation results to 

tech plan 

stakeholders. 

8. EFFECTIVE 

COLLABORATIVE 

STRATEGIES WITH 

ADULT LITERACY 

PROVIDERS TO 

MAXIMIZE THE USE 

OF TECHNOLOGY 

CRITERION 


Requirement(s): 11 (Appendix D). 

If the district has 

identified adult literacy 

providers, describe how 

the program will be 

developed in 

collaboration with them. 

(If no adult literacy 

providers are indicated, 

describe the process 

used to identify adult 

literacy providers or 

Page in 

District 


Example of 

Adequately 

Addressed 


process for evaluation 

using the goals and 

benchmarks of each 

component as the 

indicators of success. 

94 Evaluation timeline is 

specific and realistic. 


process and frequency of 

communicating 

evaluation results to tech 

plan stakeholders. 

Page in 

District 



Addressed 

97 The plan explains how the 

program will be developed in 

collaboration with adult 

literacy providers. Planning 

included or will include 

consideration of collaborative 

strategies and other funding 

resources to maximize the use 

of technology. If no adult 

literacy providers are 

indicated, the plan describes 


Adequately 

Addressed 

No provision for an 

evaluation is included in 

the plan. How success is 

determined is not defined. 

The evaluation is defined, 

but the process to conduct 

the evaluation is missing. 

The evaluation timeline is 

not included or indicates 

an expectation of 

unrealistic results that 

does not support the 

continued implementation 

of the plan. 

The plan does not provide 

a process for using the 

monitoring and evaluation 

results to improve the plan 

and/or disseminate the 

findings. 


Adequately 

Addressed 

There is no evidence 

that the plan has 

been, or will be 

developed in 

collaboration with 

adult literacy service 

providers, to 

maximize the use of 

technology. 

May 2009 117


potential future outreach 

efforts.) 

9. EFFECTIVE, 

RESEARCHED- 

BASED METHODS, 

STRATEGIES, AND 

CRITERIA 


Requirement(s): 4 and 

9 (Appendix D). 

a. Summarize the 

relevant research and 

describe how it 

supports the plan’s 

curricular and 

professional 

development goals. 

b. Describe the district’s 

plans to use 

technology to extend 

or supplement the 

district’s curriculum 

with rigorous 

academic courses 

and curricula, 

including distancelearning 

technologies. 

Page in 

District 


the process used to identify 

adult literacy providers or 

potential future outreach 

efforts. 


Addressed 


relevant research behind the 

plan’s design for strategies 

and/or methods selected. 

101 The plan describes the 

process the district will use to 

extend or supplement the 

district’s curriculum with 

rigorous academic courses 

and curricula, including 

distance learning opportunities 

(particularly in areas that 

would not otherwise have 

access to such courses or 

curricula due to geographical 

distances or insufficient 

resources). 

Not Adequately 

Addressed 

The description of 

the research behind 

the plan’s design for 

strategies and/or 

methods selected is 

unclear or missing. 

There is no plan to 

use technology to 

extend or 

supplement the 

district’s curriculum 

offerings. 

May 2009 118

Master Plan for Instructional Technology - SFUSD

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?