The district low-income rate, based on free/reduced
lunch eligibility and documented on the School Report Cards, rose from
25.5% in 1985 to 47.1% in 2005.
Research shows that when the average poverty level increases a
decline in parental interest in the educational process, etc., leads to=
a
decline in student achievement levels. According to district &nbs=
p;
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
<=
/span>
<=
/span>
<=
/span>
<=
/span>
Conclusions=
– The information in this=
box
will include one or two solid conclusion statements drawn from data and
information
stated
above. The statements should =
be
relevant to the development of the action plan. The data collected in this box will
focus on Student Achievement.
|
|
Based on the summary and analysis of School Repor=
t Card
data and the identification of key contributing factors:
=
·
a significant need exists to increase student achievement and decrease the performance gap in
reading and math between the IEP and non-IEP groups.
=
·
a slight need exists to increase student achievement=
and
decrease the performance gap in reading and math between the economica=
lly
disadvantaged (eligible for free/reduced meals) and the non-eligible
students.
In addition, our focus will be to:
- increase the overall studen=
t achievement
to exceed the state AYP target in reading and math.
- increase the student achiev=
ement of
the IEP group to meet the state AYP target in reading and math.
|
|
A.2 Other Data
Attributes and challenges of the district and communi=
ty
that have affected student learning
Description
– Provide=
a
description of other data collected during the development of the action
plan. It may include existing=
data
considered in the writing of this plan.&nb=
sp;
This is a list of tools and, when appropriate, dates administered. All data used to develop the actio=
n plan
must be made available to ISBE, the United States Department of Education, =
the
Universal Services Administrative Company, and the local community upon req=
uest.
|
|
Data
Collection Instrument &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Purpose &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Date
NextSteps
On-line Technology Survey for Students&=
nbsp; Student
Technology Use &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; February
2007
2000
Census Data &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; District & Community Demographics Spring 2000<=
/p>
District
Technology Planning Worksheet &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Committee
Assessment of Future Needs &=
nbsp; February
2007
Building School Improvement Plans &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; School
Improvement Goals &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Se=
ptember
2006
Past
School Report Cards &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Comparison
of data over time &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; 20=
02-2004
K-12
Technology Standards &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Identify
grade level technology standards &=
nbsp; 2005
K-5
Technology Curriculum Maps &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Develop
grade level technology programs
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
And
curriculum integration
activities =
; 2005
ISAT/PSAE
Assessment Results &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
Identify
academic needs &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; 2006
&nb=
sp;
District
Enrollment Records &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
Identify
patterns of enrollment over time &=
nbsp; 1970-2007
Budget Analysis &n=
bsp; =
; &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Evaluate
budget expenditures over the
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
Past
3 years &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; March
2007
Student
Information System &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
Identify
current student demographics =
; March
2007
|
|
&nbs=
p;
=
=
=
Summarize
the Data –=
; This
box should include a summary and analysis of the significant data
|
|
Summary:
District and Community Data=
:
Herrin Community Unit School District No. 4, locat=
ed in
an area covering 54 square miles, includes the incorporated towns of
Herrin, Colp, Hurst,
and Energy. Herrin, the largest of the towns, has a population of
approximately 11,000. Herrin is located in deep southern Illinois fifteen miles northeast o=
f Carbondale an=
d 10
miles northwest of Marion<=
/st1:place>,
whose populations fall between 15,000 and 75,000. This location gives e=
asy
access to Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, =
John A.
Logan College
in Carterville, Rend<=
/st1:PlaceName>
Lake College
in Ina, and Southeast=
ern
Community College in Harrisburg. <=
br>
2000 Census data shows that Herrin and the surrounding communities bega=
n to
grow at the turn of the century when coal was discovered, a railroad li=
ne
was built, and 30 coal mines were developed in or near the town. During
World War II, the government opened an area south of Herrin where munit=
ions
and other military supplies were manufactured. During the late 1940s and
early 1950s Herrin became the ‘industrial capital’ of Southern Illinois when factories such as Norge =
(now
Maytag), Allen Industries, Diagraph Bradley, and the Olin Corporation
located manufacturing centers in or near the city.
The school district’s enrollment has declined by 1000 students ov=
er
the past twenty-five years as the community has been negatively affecte=
d by
coal mine and factory closings, the most recent closing in December 2006
(Maytag) leaving approximately 1000 people unemployed.
Between 1996 and 2002, six elementary buildings were consolidated into
three attendance centers, the middle school was expanded to include gra=
des
6-8 and a new high school was built.&n=
bsp;
The district now operates North
Side Primary
Center (Pre-K-1=
), Herrin Elementary School (Grades 2-5)=
, Herrin Middle School (Grades 6-8), an=
d Herrin High School (Grades 9-12).
As shown in the 2005 School Report Card, teacher and administrator sala=
ries
both fall below the average state salaries, as do the expenditures for
instruction, general administration and supporting services. The FY04
district operating expenditure per pupil was $6784 as compared to the s=
tate
average of $8786 for Unit Districts.
According to the most recent student information o=
n the
ISBE Student Information System, a high percentage (63.6%) of IEP stude=
nts
are from low income families.
The district has an overall low income rate of 49%. 19.3% (426) of the district=
217;s
2206 students have IEPs and 63.6% (271) of that IEP group also qualifie=
s as
low income. Of the 80.6% =
(1780)
non-IEP students, only 45.5% (810) qualify as low income.
=
|
|
&nbs=
p;
According to the 2000
Census Demographic data:
- Herrin’s
population was 11,834 with 96.6% white; 0.9% Black; 0.3% American
Indian; 0.7% Asian; 0.3% other, 0.9% Hispanic and 1.1% multiracial=
.
- The
median household income in Herrin, based on the 2000 Census, is
$28,899 with the largest number of households earning between $15,=
000
and $50,000 per year. In consideration of the per capita income, 1=
3.5%
of the families fell below the poverty level.
- 79.4%
of the population are high school graduates or higher with 24.4%
holding bachelor’s degree or higher.
- 54.2%
of the employed civilian population reports occupations of managem=
ent,
professional and related occupations (26.5%) and sales and office
occupations (27.7%). A total of 36.8% report service, production,
transportation and material moving occupations. The three largest
reported industries are education, health and social services (25.=
1%);
manufacturing (14.5%); and retail trade (14.4%).
Budget Data: (Complete information with ch=
arts
is in the Technolo=
gy
Budget Analysis)
Available Funds:&=
nbsp;
In the last 3 years, a total of $878,389 has been spent to suppo=
rt
technology initiatives with an average of $292,796 per year or $133 per
pupil per year. Approxima=
tely
1.52% of the current annual budget is used to support technology
initiatives. ($282,468 of
$18,634,897)
Sustainable Funding: The percentage of the total
technology budget is funded from the following sources: District Budget =3D 57%; State=
Funding
=3D 5%; Grants =3D 8%; Federal Funding =3D 15%; E-Rate =3D 15%
Budget Process:&n=
bsp;
Groups involved with technology budget decisions: Rated f rom 1(Not Involved) to 10 (Major
Involvement)
District Wide Leadership Groups (5); District Technology Committees =
(5);
Curriculum Committees (3); District Personnel (10); Building Planning
Committees (2); Building
Personnel (5); Individual Teachers (5); Grant Writing Teams (0). The total technology budget is=
allocated
as follows: Infrastructur=
e-1%;
Hardware-30%; Software-7%; Technology Personnel-18%; Staff Development-=
5%;
Technical Support Staff-10%; Maintenance & Support-9%;
Telecommunications-20%. O=
f the
personnel budget, 44% is dedicated to admin support and 56% is dedicated
for technical support.
=
;
Curriculum Integration:
Technology
Standards for Grades K – 8 have been developed in the six are=
as
covered in NETS Standards:=
Basic Operations and Concepts,
Social and Ethical Issues, Technology Productivity Tools, Communication
Skills, Technology Research Tools and Technology Problem-Solving and
Decision-Making Tools.
Standards for each grade level are developmentally appropriate a=
nd
lead toward mastery in the use of technology in instruction to gather a=
nd
evaluate information in reading, math and content areas.
<=
span
style=3D'text-decoration:none'>
|
|
Sus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analysis:=
Community/District Demographics and Trend Data:=
The community has a very stable
population so that the school enrollment is also stable, in spite of a
mobility rate of 17 – 20%. All four attendance centers are up-to-=
date
facilities with complete internal infrastructure and robust connections=
to
the Internet. The community is located with easy access to institutions=
of
higher education, including three community colleges (John A.
Logan College,
Rend =
Lake College,
and Southeastern
Community College)
and a four-year university (Southern Illinois University) to provide
opportunities for teachers and administrators to seek additional course=
work
and for parents and community members to participate in adult literacy
classes.
The challenges faced by our community and district=
are
the same as those faced by many small towns across the state and nation=
. A
decline in economic status of the community due to factory and retail
business closings has led to an effort to rebuild the community and red=
uce
the unemployment rate.
City officials are committed to that effort. The Chamber of Comm=
erce
is actively seeking manufacturing and industry willing to locate in the
area. They have established and promoted industrial parks near the city.
New businesses are also encouraged to locate in the downtown area.
Closely related to this economic challenge facing =
the
community and the increase in the number of poverty children in school =
is
the challenge to increase student achievement in reading and mathematics
for all students and for the low income group specifically.
A high percentage of how income students combined =
with a
high percentage of those students who are also IEP students impacts ove=
rall
student achievement results.
IEP students can be part of 4 different groups in the calculatio=
n of
AYP.
Budget Analysis Data: A clear, adequate and accounta=
ble
system of budgeting to provide sustainable funds is in place in the
district. Funding from a
variety of sources, including 57% from district funds, is used to suppo=
rt
the process. The greatest
percent of the total technology budget is allocated to hardware (30%).<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Personnel accounts for 28% of =
the
technology budget.
Telecommunications accounts for 20% of expenditures. The 30% hardware and 7% softwa=
re
have enabled the district to deploy resources into the four schools. 33% of personnel time is for a=
dmin
support and 67% is for technical support. There are no instructional or
assessment/evaluation personnel available. Since the infrastructure in al=
l four
schools is up-to-date, the budget amount of 1% is low. It is extremely likely that the
total technology budget will increase in the near future.
Evaluation of Curriculum Integration of Technol=
ogy: While grade level standards are
available, all teachers are not fully implementing technology, particul=
arly
in reading and math. Most
technology instruction in Grades 6-8 consists of keyboarding and the us=
e of
word processing and is left to the ‘computer teacher.’ A small minority of classroom
instructional time is allotted to actual engaged learning activities and
technology-rich units. Time
constraints in Grades K-5 also prevent full implementation of the
standards.
&nbs=
p;
|
|
|
|
Identific=
ation of
Needs/Gaps:
Based on information gathered in regard to attributes and challenges in=
the
district,
- the
most significant gap is in the academic achievement between the low
income students (those eligible for Free/Reduced Price Meals) and =
the
non-low income group, including IEP and non-IEP students.
- Additional
technology support staff is needed for instruction and
assessment/evaluation.
|
|
<=
span
style=3D'text-decoration:none'>
Key
Factors –=
The
information in this box are directly aligned to the data analysis and ident=
ify
probable causes or contributing factors to the identified needs/gaps and ca=
n be
influenced by the objectives and strategies in this plan =
|
|
From community demographics trend data, it is note=
d that
the low income level of the district is increasing. It is generally more difficult=
to
involve parents of low income students in the education of their
children. According to th=
e 2006
School Report Card, the district percent of 89.3% parental contacts is =
less
than the state average of 96.6%.
Analysis of the state assessment data shows that I=
EP
students can impact the scores of four different groups in the calculat=
ion
of a school’s and district’s AYP.
From the budget analysis, it is noted that the amo=
unt of
funding available for technology increases annually, but is limited.
Analysis of the curriculum integration data shows =
that
time constraints have affected the rate of implementation of the Techno=
logy
Standards for Grades K-8.
|
|
&nbs=
p;
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Conclusions – The information in this=
box
will include one or two solid conclusion statements drawn from data and inf=
ormation
stated above. The statements =
should
be relevant to the development of the action plan. The data collected in this box will
focus on Curriculum Integration.
|
|
Based on the summary, analysis and identification=
of
need/gap of the effects of the community attributes and challenges on
student learning:
- a
significant need exists to provide increased access to and use of up-to-date technology by students,
particularly students from low income families and IEP students, =
as a
way to increase student achievement in reading and math through t=
he
integration of technology into the curriculum.
|
|
Local Assessment Data
Description – Provid=
e a
description of other data collected during the development of the action
plan. It may include existing=
data
considered in the writing of this plan.&nb=
sp;
This is a list of tools and, when appropriate, dates administered. All data used to develop the actio=
n plan
must be made available to ISBE, the United States Department of Education, =
the
Universal Services Administrative Company, and the local community upon req=
uest
|
|
Data
Collection Instrument &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Purpose/Use in School Improvem=
ent &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; &nb=
sp; Date
Terra
Nova Standardized Achievement Tests Gr 2-8 =
Student
Achievement in Reading,
Math
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
And
Language &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; October
2006
EXPLORE
AND PLAN TESTS &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Achievement
of Grades 9 and 10 students
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
In
reading and math =
; &n=
bsp; =
; October
2006
ISAT/PSAE Scores&n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Compare
reading and math achievement
with =
local
assessments &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 2006
NextSteps Self-Reporting Surveys &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Evaluate
progress in technology implementation&n=
bsp; 2/2007
Classroom Observation Reports; School Improvement Plans&n=
bsp;
Identify school goals for improvement 2006-2007
|
|
=
Summarize
the Data –=
; This
box should include a summary and analysis of the significant data
|
|
Summary o=
f Local
Student Achievement Data:
Standardized Tests:
With the exception of October 2005, the Terra
Nova Standardized Achievement Test has been administered annually in
the fall to students in Grades 2-8.&nb=
sp;
In October a new version of the test was given in some grades. Since no data was available fo=
r 2005
and a different version was administered, the October 2006 scores are b=
eing
considered as baseline data.
Regular Education Students: Reading NCE scores in 2006 ranged f=
rom
51.5 to 54.1 with a mean reading score of 52.9. Math NCE scores ranged from 46=
.0 to
57.6 with a mean score of 52.6.
Special Education Students:&nbs=
p;
Reading=
NCE scores ranged from 20.8 to 29.2 with a mean of 25.5. Math NCE scores ranged from 13=
to
31.2 with a mean of 21.3.
ISAT/IAA Assessments:
Since the tests themselves were new in 2006, the a=
mount
of data available for comparison is somewhat limited. For purposes of this report, o=
nly
2005 and 2006 scores will be considered.
As shown on a State
Assessment Demographic Comparison, student performance on the readi=
ng
and math tests remains stable when considering the ALL group. The average performance in rea=
ding
was approximately 65% in Grades 3-5 and 78% in Grades 6-8. Math performance was 80% for G=
rades
3-5 and 75% in 6-8.
|
|
&nbs=
p;
When considering the same groups of students (2005=
3rd
grade to 2006 4th grade; and 2005 5th grade to 20=
06 6th
grade) over 2 years of testing, students showed gains except in Grades =
3-4
math.
PLAN/EXPLORE and PSAE:
Currently Herrin
High School use=
s EPAS
as a system of assessments.
EPAS uses three tests from ACT.=
The three tests are EXPLORE (Grade 9), PLAN (Grade 10) and ACT
(Grade 11). EXPLORE and P=
LAN
are given in October. The=
ACT
is given as part of the PSAE in April of students’ junior year. <=
/p>
On the EXPLORE test, students scored close to the =
state
average in all areas tested. On
the PLAN test, students scored at the national average in all areas tes=
ted
as shown in the HHS
Assessment Summary.
On the ACT test students scored slightly below the=
state
average in English and math, above the state average in reading and at =
the
state average in science.
Although students scored below in two areas, the amount is not
statistically significant.
On the PSAE, over 55% of the students met standard=
s in
math and over 72% of the students met standards in reading.
Self-Reporting Surveys:
Technology Readiness Survey: A majority of administrators
classify the use of technology for knowledge construction less than 35%,
for research less than 35% and student-centered classrooms less than
10%. Overall they rate
readiness in the Emerging and Developing stages. They also report that 80% or m=
ore
classrooms in their schools have active drops.
&nbs=
p;
K-8 librarians report that 85% - 100% of scheduled=
time
in the media center/library is whole class, routine, rotation use. The 9-12 librarian reports tha=
t a
combination of whole class and flexible, on demand use, together is used
approximately 75% of the time.
Teacher
survey respondents report as follows:
- 74%
classify themselves as confident technology users and/or capable of
teaching others.
- 88%
have home computers.
- 72%
say training has been adequate.
- 63%
report that assistance is generally available when needed.
- 35%
report no significant changes in instructional practices while 65%
report they use technology to provide individualization.
- 75%
report that students most often work individually, with 17% report=
ing
pairs or small groups.
- 65%
report that students have technology access daily/weekly/monthly.<=
/li>
- 68%
report that students use data less than 2-4 times per year and 74%=
say
students don’t communicate what they have learned publicly.<=
/li>
|
|
![](3D"2007+-+2010+Technologyplan_files/image002.gif")
|
|
Student respondents to a student
survey reported as follows:
- 89%
have been using computers 5+ years
- 61%
classify themselves confident users with 28% also reporting capabl=
e of
teaching others.
- 72%
reported that they work alone at school with 21% reporting that th=
ey
work in pairs.
- 82%
stated that the teacher arranges the times for using technology;
- 84%
reported using a computer at school 2-3 hours or less per week with
56% of those reporting 1 hour or less.
- 53%
reported using computers at home 4 or more hours per week with 39%=
of
those reporting 7+ hours.
- 95%
reported having their own personal Internet account status and onl=
y 2%
reported having no access to the Internet.
Committee members, as reported on the Techn=
ology
Planning Worksheet, report a need to align the curriculum with
state reading and math standards and technology standards.
&nbs=
p;
Analysis =
of Local
Student Achievement:
Overall Terra Nova results are very stable over ti=
me
with slight increases in math for regular education students. Scores for special education
students are well below national norms with the means in reading NCEs 2=
7.4
and math NCEs 31.3 lower than NCEs of regular education students. Results
are used to develop School Improvement goals.
On ISAT/IAA and PSAE tests, students met or exceed=
ed the
target performance level of 47.5% in both reading and math except the I=
EP
group in grades 3-5 reading.
The number of IEP students was not sufficient to form a group in
Grade 11.
Classroom observations by building administrators
confirm that classrooms have sufficient technology and Internet
connections. However, rea=
diness
levels vary from building to building and from teacher to teacher. All agreed that the frequency =
of
student independence and choice occurs less than 10% of the time. They also agree that there are
limited opportunities for students to participate in activities that use
raw data from the Internet to collect, analyze and synthesize data into
useful information and knowledge.
There is agreement in responses that the reading and math curric=
ulum
must be aligned to the state standards.
Results from staff (librarians, teachers and
administrators) and student surveys are consistent with each other in t=
heir
view of readiness levels. A
majority of students and teachers classify themselves as confident user=
s,
capable of teaching others.
Responses from students and teachers also show that students work
approximately 72% - 75% of their technology time individually and that
teachers generally arrange the time.&n=
bsp;
(NOTE: In this
technology plan, “staff” will include librarians, teachers,=
and
administrators.)
&nbs=
p;
Identific=
ation of
Needs/Gaps:
Based on analysis of local assessment data, student
achievement in reading and math needs to increase beyond current levels=
for
all students and the gaps between the achievement of special education
students and regular education students and low income and not low inco=
me
students need to close.
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
Identific=
ation of
Needs/Gaps:
Based on the summary and analysis of local assessm=
ent
data and the identification of contributing factors:
- A
significant need exists to improve the reading and math scores for=
all
students, including low income and non-low income students.
- A
significant need exists to decrease the gap between performance of=
IEP
students and regular education students.
- A
need exists to provide both regular education and special education
teachers with the tools needed to help students increase mastery of
state standards.
- A
need exists to provide increased opportunities for students to con=
trol
their own learning by participating in investigation/ research and
knowledge construction activities and to communicate their learnin=
g to
others.
|
|
<=
span
style=3D'text-decoration:none'>
Key
Factors –=
The
information in this box are directly aligned to the data analysis and ident=
ify
probable causes or contributing factors to the identified needs/gaps and ca=
n be
influenced by the objectives and strategies in this plan =
=
|
|
Results from the annual Terra Nova Standardized Te=
sts,
show that special education students are working well below grade level=
but
are tested with grade level materials.=
Because their scores are also derived from very small groups of
students (5 to 16), they are less reliable than scores for groups of
students 145 or greater.
Analysis of demographic data shows that a greater
percentage of IEP students (63.6%) than non-IEP students (45.5%) are fr=
om
low income families. While
Grade 11 low income students tend to score at a lower level than our
non-low income students, the gap is much smaller than the state or nati=
onal
average.
Grades 9 and 10 assessment data verify that we exp=
ect to
see a growth of about two points from the freshman to sophomore year and
from the sophomore to junior year.&nbs=
p;
The results from the 2006 data show the growth of approximately =
two
points each year in each area. <=
/span>
Analysis of self-reporting surveys shows that the
district curriculum in reading and math has not been fully aligned with=
the
state reading, math and technology standards.
|
|
&nbs=
p;
=
=
=
=
Co=
nclusions – The information in this=
box
will include one or two solid conclusion statements drawn from data and
information stated above. The
statements should be relevant to the development of the action plan. The data collected in this box will
focus on Student Achievement.
|
|
Based on the summary, analysis and identification=
of
need/gap utilizing the local assessment data, it is determined that a
significant need exists:
- to
raise the achievement
level of all students.
- to
close the achievement ga=
p between
the IEP and Non-IEP students in reading and mathematics; and
- to
close the achievement ga=
p
between low income and non-low income students in reading and
mathematics.
|
|
Educator qualifications and professional growth and
development data
Description – Provide a description of
other data collected during the development of the action plan. It may include existing data consi=
dered
in the writing of this plan. =
This
is a list of tools and, when appropriate, dates administered. All data used to develop the actio=
n plan
must be made available to ISBE, the United States Department of Education, =
the
Universal Services Administrative Company, and the local community upon req=
uest
|
|
Data
Collection Instrument &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Purpose &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Date
Individual
Certificate Renewal Plans &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Identify
individual professional development needs January 2007
On-line
Technology Survey for Teachers &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Gather
self-reported data on needs =
&nb=
sp; February
2007
Librarian
Surveys &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Determine
perceived teacher needs &nbs=
p; =
February
2007
Readiness
Survey for Administrators &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Collect
and analyze data on teacher
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
readiness
for technology use &nb=
sp; =
February
2007
Approved Two-year Mentoring Plan &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Professional
Development for new teachers =
; February
2007
Professional Development Request File &nb=
sp; =
Monitor
Professional Growth and Development of teachers 3/07
Technology Planning Worksheet &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Collect
data on areas for professional development February
2007
|
|
&nbs=
p;
=
=
Summarize
the Data –=
; This
box should include a summary and analysis of the significant data
&nbs=
p;
Key
Factors –=
The
information in this box are directly aligned to the data analysis and ident=
ify
probable causes or contributing factors to the identified needs/gaps and ca=
n be
influenced by the objectives and strategies in this plan =
|
|
Analysis of self-reporting surveys and certificate
renewal plans indicate that while teachers have received adequate
professional development in the integration of technology, they have not
made significant changes in their instructional practices to enable
students to fully utilize the available technologies.
From the surveys, it is indicated that the use of
technology-rich units has not been widespread among the district’s
instructional staff.
Self-reporting surveys also indicate that not every
classroom is equipped with peripherals, such as multimedia projectors a=
nd
Smart Boards to be able to fully implement the use of technology in the=
ir
everyday instruction.
|
|
&nbs=
p;
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Conclusions
– The
information in this box will include one or two solid conclusion statements
drawn from data and information stated above. The statements should be relevant =
to the
development of the action plan. The
data collected in this box will focus on Professional Development.
|
|
Based on the summary, analysis and identification=
of
needs/gaps of data collected regarding educator qualifications and pro=
fessional
growth and development:
- a
need exists to increase =
the
capacity of teachers to
integrate technology by having access to and using available
technology to implement the use of authentic assessments and improve instruction by
employing instructional practices to enable all students to impro=
ve
their achievement in reading and mathematics through the use of innovative techn=
ology.
|
|
Parent / Community Involvement Data=
Description – Provide a description of
other data collected during the development of the action plan. It may include existing data consi=
dered
in the writing of this plan. =
This
is a list of tools and, when appropriate, dates administered. All data used to develop the actio=
n plan
must be made available to ISBE, the United States Department of Education, =
the
Universal Services Administrative Company, and the local community upon req=
uest
|
|
Data
Collection Instrument &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Purpose &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Date
NextSteps
Community Survey: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Collect
data on community involvem=
ent M=
arch
2007
Comprehensive Needs Assessment Parent Surveys &nb=
sp; Collect
information on parent
involvement March 20=
06
Parent Evaluation Forms for Parent Conferences &nb=
sp; Revi=
ew
parent comments for recommendations 2000 – 2006
2006 School Report Card &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Gather
data on Parental Contacts<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:2'> &nb=
sp; March
2007
JALC Records of Adult Literacy Classes &nb=
sp; =
Monitor
adult literacy classes off=
ered
in the district January 2007
Technology Planning Worksheet &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Identify
current status of community involvement=
February
2007
|
|
&nbs=
p;
=
Summarize
the Data
– This box should include a summary and analysis of the significant d=
ata
|
|
|
|
|
Summary:<=
o:p>
A number of community partnerships are
currently in place in the district:&nb=
sp;
Foundations - The Robert N. Brewer Foundation and the Harrison-B=
ruce
Foundation have regularly supported technology with financial help;
Businesses- The Bank of Herrin and Herrin Security Bank collaborate with
the high school to operate a student-operated bank, First Tiger Trust;
Chamber of Commerce-chapter of Junior Chamber at HHS. Colleges: John A. Logan College-provides=
adult literacy classes and training in computer labs and
classrooms in the district, including GED, art, Italian and a variety of
technology classes. The s=
chool
district has a long-standing partnership with Herrin City Library. Library staff provides a numbe=
r of
programs coordinated with district activities: Summer Reading Program, etc. Areas identified on the Techn=
ology
Planning Worksheet as preferred future in community
involvement: email links =
to
parents; computer labs available to parents; use of websites to communi=
cate
with parents; software aligned with ISAT reading, math and writing
available for home use.
Home School Connection: =
Both
district and school web pages are available to parents and community
members to provide current information related to the school
district’s activities.
The 2006 SRC percent of parental contact of 89.3% is less than t=
he
state average of 96.6% with a range from 98.5% in grades K-1 to 75.6% in
grades 9-12. The technolo=
gy
plan and grade level standards are posted for easy access. (See
www.herrinunit.org) Parents have access to student attendance and grade=
s,
the Know Zone (a site related to the elementary reading curriculum). Based on self-reporting survey=
s,
some teachers use email to communicate with parents. In a recent parent/community su=
rvey,
respondents reported:
- 91%
have home computers
- 95%
use computers at work
- 97%
have access to Internet use
- 84%
use a computer for learning
- 91
% rank technology needs 6-10 on a scale of 0-10 with 100% recogniz=
ing
the importance of technology in learning.
|
|
|
|
|
Analysis:=
Although some businesses and community groups have
demonstrated interest, involvement and commitment to technology and
learning, the community as a whole has not demonstrated a widespread
commitment to skills and practices possible only with technology and the
benefits of technology. T=
here
are limited working partnerships with community groups.
&nbs=
p;
Responses given on the community survey demonstrat=
e a
high degree of technology/computer use and a strong commitment to the
importance of technology in schools.
Parental contacts with the schools decrease from l=
ower
primary students to high school age students. Technology committee members s=
ee a
need for closer home-school communication and collaboration as a way to
improve academic achievement in reading and math.
Identific=
ation of
Needs/Gaps:
Based on evaluation of the data collected relative=
to
parent/community involvement:
- A
significant need exists for schools to improve parental contacts a=
nd
to be able to communicate electronically with parents and community
members.
- There
are limited partnerships with community groups to confirm the bene=
fits
of technology to instruction, even though there is a high percent =
of
recognition of the importance of technology in learning.
|
|
&nbs=
p;
Key
Factors –=
The
information in this box are directly aligned to the data analysis and ident=
ify
probable causes or contributing factors to the identified needs/gaps and ca=
n be
influenced by the objectives and strategies in this plan =
|
|
Data collected in the comprehensive needs assessme=
nt
documents that the number of homes with computers and Internet access is
increasing, but that the school cannot connect electronically with all
homes. The district and e=
ach
school currently have web sites, but most teachers have not developed t=
heir
own web pages as a way to communicate with parents.
Analysis of School Report Card Parental Contact da=
ta
shows that schools have not made full use of available resources to enl=
ist
parental support for increased student achievement in reading and math.=
Analysis of community data indicates that family
economic status affects direct parental contact with the schools
electronically and by phone.
|
|
&nbs=
p;
=
=
=
=
Conclusions
– The
information in this box will include one or two solid conclusion statements
drawn from data and information stated above. The statements should be relevant =
to the
development of the action plan. The
data collected in this box will focus on Parent and Community Involvement. =
|
|
Research documents that effective parental involv=
ement
is a critical factor in improving student academic achievement. Based on the summary, analysi=
s, and
identification of need:
- school-parent/community
involvement must be strengthened to increase opportunities fo=
r communicating with parents =
and
the community using technology and collaboration with parents as a way to improve student
achievement in reading and mathematics.
|
|
A.3 Technology
Deployment Data
Please
complete the Technology Inventory Spreadsheet and include as an attachment =
to
the plan
Description – Provide a description of
other data collected during the development of the action plan. It may include existing data consi=
dered
in the writing of this plan. =
This
is a list of tools and, when appropriate, dates administered. All data used to develop the actio=
n plan
must be made available to ISBE, the United States Department of Education, =
the
Universal Services Administrative Company, and the local community upon req=
uest
|
|
Data
Collection Instrument &n=
bsp; =
; &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Purpose &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Date
Updated
software (on file in school and district offices) Monitor availability of
instructional software =
; Spring
2007
ISBE
District Technology Inventory Survey &n=
bsp; Identify
needs for deployment &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
Spring
2007
Infrastructure
Design &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Evaluate
capacity and project needs &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; December
2006
Network
Software &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Identify
current needs &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; March
2007
Existing
Approved Technology Plan &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Determine
progress in meeting past goals &nb=
sp; Febr=
uary
2007
Technical
Support &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Eva=
luate
current needs &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; 2006-2007
Equipment
Deployment Plan =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Set
priorities for deployment of resources&=
nbsp; Fe=
bruary
2007
Technology Planning Worksheet &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Identify
preferred future for deployment
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Of
resources =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Februa=
ry
2007
|
|
&nbs=
p;
=
=
Summarize
the Data –=
; This
box should include a summary and analysis of the significant data
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary:<=
o:p>
Hardware
Inventory: The ISBE Distr=
ict
Technology Inventory Survey tool is attached. (A total of 909 compu=
ters
are deployed in the district.
(97% PC and 3% MAC) 709
(78%) of the computers are in classrooms for student use (3.1/pupil). Each building also has a minim=
um of
1 lab available for complete classes.&=
nbsp;
39 hubs, 72 switches, 12 wireless access points are deployed in =
the
5 instructional buildings and 2 non-instructional buildings. 7 firewalls, 5 spam filters an=
d 4
content filters are also deployed.&nbs=
p;
17 networked printers, 173 stand alone printers, 66 scanners and=
45
LCD projectors are available in classrooms and offices. Only 7 Smart Boards are deploy=
ed,
but 28 MIMIO units are deployed.
The Techn=
ology
Planning Worksheet identifies areas of agreement among committee
members for the following needs in hardware deployment: fiber capabilities to connect =
all
buildings with a WAN to provide increased speed to handle increasing lo=
ads;
additional servers; new computers in classrooms; additional LCD project=
ors,
Smart Boards, new technologies; development and implementation of a plan
for deployment, replacement and maintenance of computers and peripheral=
s;
mobile workstations.
|
|
|
|
Software
Inventory: Personal
productivity software is available for all computers. Filtering and anti-virus licen=
sing
exceeds the number of available computers as shown on the attached
inventory.
Infrastructure
designs show that all buildings have robust connectivity to the
Internet via T-1 lines. Since all buildings are either new or have rece=
ntly
been renovated, electrical capacity and infrastructure are at maximum
capability. A distr=
ict
WAN is not available at this time.
Telecommu=
nications
Equipment and Services: <=
/b>The
district participates in the E-rate program and qualifies for approxima=
tely
77% discounted services. =
The
e-rate discount is applied to 47 landlines in 145 classrooms and 5
administrative offices and 7 mobile phones. The district uses the reimburs=
ement
method to receive payment from its vendors through E-rate.
Internet
Access: Four schools =
are
connected to the Internet through the Illinois Century Network via T-1
lines; Two district offic=
es
(non instructional buildings) use DSL lines for access.
Service a=
nd
Maintenance: <=
/b>
A full-time technology administrator, one full-time
technology maintenance and networking specialist, and one full-time aide
are employed by the district to provide services, including maintenance=
and
repair of existing equipment and determining the needs for new
purchases. Surveys identi=
fy a
need to increase the technology staff.
&nbs=
p;
Analysis:=
Hardware
Inventory: The distri=
ct
hardware inventory indicates that we are close to the ‘optimal=
217;
rating in the area of computer deployment. All classrooms are equip=
ped
with up-to-date computers, most in the 2-5 year range. All four buildings have new re=
source
and instructional labs, servers and CD towers. In addition to computers, prin=
ters
and scanners are widely deployed.
In ratio, there are less LCD projectors, video camcorders and
digital cameras available for widespread use. Mobile labs are not available.=
Equipment for use in reading a=
nd
math instruction is not available is sufficient quantities for use by b=
oth
students and teachers. A
three-year Technology
Deployment Plan covering the time of this plan has been develop=
ed.
Software
Inventory: Licensed
personal productivity, desktop publishing, filtering and anti-virus
software are available to support the amount of technology currently
available to students, teachers and administrators as shown on the atta=
ched
software inventory as well as future needs in filtering and anti-virus
software.
Telecom Links: All classrooms, labs, media
centers and administrative offices are wired with 100 mg Ethernet links=
.
Networking
Equipment: Adequate h=
ubs,
switches and wireless access points are deployed to ensure access and
reliability in each of the four schools. Firewalls, spam and content fi=
lters
are in place on each network.
No WAN is available in the district.
Internet
Access: Speed and
efficiency for all buildings is reaching maximum for the amount of
technology in the buildings.
Service a=
nd
Maintenance: Addition=
al
personnel are needed to provide adequate service and maintenance for the
district’s technology equipment and program.
Identific=
ation of
Needs/Gaps:
Based on the evaluation of technology deployment d=
ata,
the following needs/gaps have been identified:
·
Most buildings do not have access to
portable technology, such as mobile laptop labs.
·
There is no WAN connecting all district
schools and offices.
·
Technical help is sometimes not readily
available.
|
|
&nbs=
p;
Key
Factors –=
The
information in this box are directly aligned to the data analysis and ident=
ify
probable causes or contributing factors to the identified needs/gaps and ca=
n be
influenced by the objectives and strategies in this plan =
|
|
From the technology inventory data, it can be seen=
that
over the past two years, additional labs and technology peripherals have
been deployed in the district’s attendance centers to provide rea=
dy
access to resources during the school day and in after-school programs.=
All
classrooms have at least one up-to-date computer, and out-dated ones are
slowly being replaced or upgraded. A lack of finances has
prohibited deployment of hardware needed to fully implement technology
integration.
From the service and maintenance data collected, it is evident that
technical help is available and a request for maintenance system is in
place, but because the quantity of equipment has increased, there may be
some lag time even though additional staff has been added in the past y=
ear.
|
|
&nbs=
p;
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Conclusions – The information in this=
box
will include one or two solid conclusion statements drawn from data and
information stated above. The
statements should be relevant to the development of the action plan. The data collected in this box will
focus on technology systems/equipment, support, tools and policies.
|
|
Based on the summary, analysis and identification of needs of informat=
ion
collected and evaluated in the technology deployment section a need ex=
ists
- To deploy the technological
resources, systems/equipment, tools and support necessary to
broaden opportunities for all learners and improve achievement of=
all
students, including IEP and low income students, in reading and m=
ath.
- To
annually review and reaffirm/revise the district’s Internet Safety Policy.=
|
|
Part B. Data Analysis—(Meta-Analysis Section)
The district will pr=
ovide
an analysis of the data by identifying patterns and trends. The analysis of
data will be used to provide the basis for defining objectives, strategies =
and
activities by identifying at least one key factor or need in each of the
following areas:
• curriculum integration
• professional development
• parental/community involvement
• technology deployment
Key factors or needs=
may
include (but are not limited to):
• indicators of why the district’s prior =
plan
failed to increase student academic
• achievement based on an analysis of student
achievement data
• district and community characteristics that
affect student learning
• educators’ qualifications and professio=
nal
growth
• parent involvement affecting student performa=
nce
• indicators of why the district did not achieve
AMAO, if applicable
B.
1 Copy and past=
e the conclusions identified in the
Conclusions boxes from A.1, A.2 and A.3. The wo=
rk
done and conclusions drawn in =
A.1,
A.2 and A.3 will lead to the development of your strategies in your Action =
Plan
in support of the objective.
|
|
A.1 District Report Card Conclusi=
ons
Based on the summary and analysis of School Repor=
t Card
data and the identification of key contributing factors:
=
·
a significant need exists to increase student achievement=
and
decrease the performance gap in reading and math between the IEP and
non-IEP groups.
=
·
a slight need exists to increase student achievement=
and
decrease the performance gap in reading and math between the economica=
lly
disadvantaged (eligible for free/reduced meals) and the non-eligible
students.
In addition, our focus will be to:
- increase the overall studen=
t achievement
to exceed the state AYP target in reading and math.
- increase the student achiev=
ement of
the IEP group to meet the state AYP target in reading and math.
A.2 Other Data Conclusions
Based on the summary, analysis and identification=
of
need/gap of the effects of the community
attributes and challenges on student learning:
- a
significant need exists to provide increased access to and use of up-to-date technology by students,
particularly students from low income families and IEP students, =
as a
way to increase student achievement in reading and math through t=
he
integration of technology into the curriculum.
Based on the summary, analysis and identification=
of
need/gap utilizing the local
assessment data, it is determined that a significant need exists <=
/p>
- to
raise the achievement
level of all students.
- to
close the achievement ga=
p between
the IEP and Non-IEP students in reading and mathematics; and
- to
close the achievement ga=
p
between low income and non-low income students in reading and
mathematics.
Based on the summary, analysis and identification=
of
needs/gaps of data collected regarding educator qualifications and pro=
fessional
growth and development:
- a
need exists to increase =
the
capacity of teachers to
integrate technology by having access to and using available
technology to implement the use of authentic assessments and improve instruction by
employing instructional practices to enable all students to impro=
ve
their achievement in reading and mathematics through the use of innovative techn=
ology.
Based on the summary, analysis, and identificatio=
n of
need in parental/community
involvement:
- school-parent/community
involvement must be strengthened to increase opportunities fo=
r communicating with parents =
and
the community using technology and collaboration with parents as a way to improve student
achievement in reading and mathematics.
|
|
|
|
A.3 Technology Deployment Conclusi=
ons
Based on the summary, analysis and identification =
of
needs of information collected and evaluated in the technology deployme=
nt
section a need exists
- To
deploy the resources,
equipment, tools and support necessary to broaden opportunities
for all learners and improve achievement of all students, including
IEP and low income students, in reading and math.
- To
annually review and reaffirm/revise the district’s Internet Safety Policy.<=
br
style=3D'mso-special-character:line-break'>
|
|
B. 2 An ana=
lysis
of the student achievement data found in A.1 and the local assessment secti=
on
will be used to define your =
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp;
S.M.A.R.T objec=
tive(s). This box should (1) identify patter=
ns and
trends in student achievement, (2) summarize key factors related to student
achievement and (3) draw at least one or two prevailing conclusions that wi=
ll
lead to the development of your objective(s).
|
|
Patterns=
and
Trends in Student Achievement:
Student achievement scores on both state and local
assessments have been relatively ‘flat’ for the past few
years. On the state asse=
ssments,
the ALL group has consistently =
scored
above 60% mastery in reading and above 70%mastery in math in Grades 3-8
and above 50% in Grade 11.
Reading achievement increases as students move up through the
grades, while the % of math mastery decreases as students move into mi=
ddle
and high school where there is more diversity in coursework.
The most significant pattern in student achieveme=
nt is
in the achievement of IEP students as compared to non-IEP students. Differences in reading for Gr=
ades
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 are 55.8, 25.9, 66.3, 55.8, 50.1, 58.0 and 65=
.7,
respectively. Difference=
s in
math achievement for the two groups in Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11=
are
34.1, 44.8, 57.2, 39.7, 47.4, 19.3, and 54.7, respectively. Even though IEP scores accoun=
t for
a small percent of students, IEP scores have an overall effect of
approximately 10% less mastery on the total group. Differences between the two g=
roups
of students are greater in reading than math. Although differences also exi=
st
between achievement of low income and non-low income groups, those
differences are less pronounced.
Annual Terra Nova Standardized Achievement Test r=
esults
show similar patterns between regular and special education students.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
Summary =
of Key
Factors Related to Student Achievement:
A.1 School
Report Card
The district low-income rate, based on free/reduc=
ed
lunch eligibility and documented on the School Report Cards, rose from
25.5% in 1985 to 47.1% in 2005.
Research shows that when the average poverty level increases a
decline in parental interest in the educational process, etc., leads t=
o a
decline in student achievement levels. According to district F=
all
Housing and Enrollment records since 1988, the number of K-8 self-cont=
ained
special education students has remained the same at 90, but has increa=
sed
in grades 9-12 from 42 to 73.
We keep students in school longer.
The performance of IEP students on state assessme=
nts
has a definite effect on the district’s AYP status in reading. It was the only group that fa=
iled to
meet the target in reading in Grades 3-11, thereby causing one school =
and
the district not to make AYP in 2006.
A.2 Other
Data
Research studies show a strong correlation betwee=
n the
family income level and the academic achievement of students. It is generally more difficul=
t to
involve parents of low income students in the education of their
children. (e.g. they have
negative feelings about school from their own experience; they feel un=
able
to help with school work, etc.)
According to the 2006 School Report Card, the district percent =
of
89.3% parental contacts is less than the state average of 96.6%.
&nb=
sp;
|
|
<=
/o:p>
|
|
|
According to the most recent student information o=
n the
ISBE Student Information System, a high percentage (63.6%) of IEP stude=
nts
are from low income families.
The district has an overall low income rate of 49%. 19.3% (426) of the district=
217;s
2206 students have IEPs and 63.6% (271) of that IEP group also qualifie=
s as
low income. Of the 80.6% =
(1780)
non-IEP students, only 45.5% (810) qualify as low income.
The amount of funding available for technology inc=
reases
annually, but is limited.
Time constraints have affected the rate of
implementation of the Technology Standards for Grades K-8.
=
;
Key Factor/Need in Curriculum Integration:=
Special education students are working well below =
grade
level but are tested with grade level materials. Because their scores are also
derived from very small groups of students (5 to 16), they are less
reliable than scores for groups of students 145 or greater.
A greater percentage of IEP students (63.6%) than
non-IEP students (45.5%) are from low income families.
There is limited inclusion of the Five Application=
s of
Learning as part of teachers’ instructional strategies: communicating, critical thinki=
ng,
problem-solving, creativity and innovation, collaboration, and making
connections to the real world.
While Grade 11 low income students tend to score a=
t a
lower level than our non-low income students, the gap is much smaller t=
han
the state or national average.
We want to see a growth of about two points from t=
he
freshman to sophomore year and from the sophomore to junior year. The results from the 2006 data=
show
the growth of approximately two points each year in each area. This is what is expected in th=
e EPAS
system.
Key Facto=
r: District curriculum in reading=
and
math has not been fully aligned with the state reading, math and techno=
logy
standards.
=
;
Key Factor/Need in Professional Development:
While teachers have received adequate professional
development in the integration of technology, they have not made
significant changes in their instructional practices to enable students=
to
fully utilize the available technologies. The use of technology-rich uni=
ts has
not been widespread among the district’s instructional staff. Not every classroom is equippe=
d with
peripherals, such as multimedia projectors and Smart Boards to be able =
to
fully implement the use of technology in their everyday instruction.
|
|
|
|
Key Factor/Need in Parental/Community Involveme=
nt:
While the number of homes with computers and Inter=
net
access is increasing, the school cannot connect electronically with all
homes. The district and e=
ach
school currently have web sites, but most teachers have not developed t=
heir
own web pages as a way to communicate with parents. Schools have not made full use=
of
available resources to enlist parental support for increased student ac=
hievement
in reading and math.
Key Factor/Need Technology Deployment:
Over the past two years, additional labs and techn=
ology
peripherals have been deployed in the district’s attendance cente=
rs
to provide ready access to resources during the school day and in
after-school programs. All classrooms have at least one up-to-date
computer, and out-dated ones are slowly being replaced or upgraded. A lack of finances has
prohibited deployment of hardware needed to fully implement technology
integration.
Technical help is available and a request for maintenance system is in
place, but because the quantity of equipment has increased, there may be
some lag time even though additional staff has been added in the past y=
ear.
Prevailing
Conclusions:
In consideration of data gathered in A.1, A.2 and =
A.3,
the following prevailing conclusions have been drawn:
- A
significant need exists to raise
the achievement level of all students and close the achievement
gap between the IEP and Non-IEP students and the low income and
non-low income students and parents in reading and math.
- A
significant need exists to provide increased access to informational and instructional technology and
telecommunications tools for use by students, particularly
students from low income families and IEP students, as a way to
increase student achievement in reading and math.
- A
need exists to increase the capacity
of staff to utilize available informational and instructional
technology and telecommunications tools improve instruction by
implementing technology-rich units to enable all students to impro=
ve
their achievement in reading and math.
- A
need exists to deploy the resources,
equipment, tools and support necessary to broaden opportunities
for all learners and improve achievement of all students, including
IEP and low income students, in reading and math.
- Annually
review, reaffirm/revise and publish the district’s Internet
Safety Policy.
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
&nbs=
p;
|
|
![3D"Text](3D"2007+-+2010+Technologyplan_files/image004.gif")
SECTION II: ACTION PLAN &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
Complete the Action Plan and Budget Template for Tech Plan. xls for Sec=
tion
II Parts A-E.
Part F. Monitoring Proces=
s
The
technology plan should outline a forward-looking evaluation process for fut=
ure
technology implementation measures that compensate or adjust to changing
conditions that might occur beyond the life of the plan. Describe how the district will ass=
ess
the effectiveness of hardware, software and other telecommunication services
that will be needed to improve education.
=
Distr=
ict will
need to do an annual evaluation that will allow for midcourse correction in
response to new developments and opportunities as they arise.
F.1 Describe how district personnel wi=
ll
monitor the effectiveness of the strategies and activities by measuring
progress toward the specified objectives.&=
nbsp;
Description should address:
·
Integrating
technology into curriculum and instruction
·
Increasing
the ability of teachers to teach
·
Enabling
students to reach challenging state academic standards
Information
within this section should:
· Establish an on-goin=
g,
measurable process for monitoring the effectiveness of strategies and
activities toward the achievement of the objective(s)
· Identify the tools t=
hat
will be used to monitor the process
· Identify the indicat=
ors
that will show progress toward the objective
· Identify the frequen=
cy of
evaluation
|
|
Monitoring
Process:
The Herrin Community Unit School District No. 4
Technology Committee, including the stakeholders listed in the following
section, will meet annually in June to evaluate progress in meeting the
objectives and activities of technology action plan. This committee will
use Illinois Next Steps tools and other sources as shown on the followi=
ng
page to assess how the integration of technology has impacted student
achievement and overall progress toward meeting State Standards. Data
collected during the development of the current plan will be utilized as
baseline data in the evaluation cycle.=
Members will collect quantitative and qualitative data and consi=
der
both expected results and success indicators in determining the course =
of
action to be taken as shown in the table on the following page to determine progress toward meeting=
the
overall objective of this technology plan. Summary of the results of the
monitoring process will focus on important characteristics of the plan,=
its
successes, its problems, and recommendations for the course of action t=
o be
taken to adjust timelines and/or activities to make maximum use of the
district’s resources and to include additional technology as it
becomes available and teachers become more familiar with its uses and
benefits in the instructional process.
The following table outlines an on-going, measurable process for monitoring the effectiveness of
the strategies and activities toward the achievement of the objective.<=
/p>
|
|
&nbs=
p;
=
|
Monitoring Tools for Strategies=
&
Activities
|
Progress
Indicators
|
Evaluation Frequency=
|
Person(s) Responsible for Monit=
oring
Effectiveness of Strategies and Activities
|
|
Pre-/Post Surveys; meeting logs
(Strategies B.1, B.2,B.3, C.1)
|
Completion of activities to increase community
awareness, teacher/student knowledge, skills and attitudes
|
Semester
|
District Level Administrators, Helen Hamilton; M=
ike
Horn
|
|
Usage logs; portfolios; student journals;
(Strategies B.1, B.2, B.3)
|
Completion of activities aligned with technology
standards, benchmarks and district curriculum.
|
Quarterly
|
Building Principals
|
|
Teacher developed technology-rich units in readi=
ng and
math
(Strategies B.1, B.2, C.1)
|
Lesson plans will be posted on school web sites =
and
observations will show lessons implemented in the classroom
|
Quarterly
|
Building Principals
|
|
Lists of commun=
ity
partnerships/parental involvement activities
(Strategies B.3=
, C.1, D.1,
D.2)
|
The number of partnerships and parental involvem=
ent
activities will increase as documented by the lists.
|
Semester
|
District Level Administrators, Helen Hamilton; M=
ike
Horn
|
|
Maintenance of hardware and software inventories=
(Strategies E.1, E.2)
|
Technology inventories are maintained and analyz=
ed.
|
Annually
|
District Level Administrator, Helen Hamilton
|
|
Maintenance of =
software
licenses and online resource subscriptions (Strategy E.1)<=
/span>
|
District records document that licenses and
subscriptions are renewed annually.
|
Annually
|
District Level Administrator, Helen Hamilton
|
|
Professional
development conference requests and attendance records
(Strategy C.1)<=
/span>
|
Records will document conference participation, =
the
number of teachers trained and the types of training provided.
|
Annually
|
District Level Administrator, Helen Hamilton
|
|
Logs of maintenance services performed
(Strategy E.3)
|
Completion of services requested by staff
|
Quarterly
|
District Technology Administrator, Robert Wrolso=
n
|
|
Internet Safety Policy
(Strategy E.4)
|
District policy reaffirmed and/or confirmed for
compliance with CIPA and GEPA
|
Annually
|
District Superintendent, Dr. Mark G. Collins
|
|
Monitor effecti=
veness
of the plan using local and state assessment results. (Strategies B.1 – B.3)<=
/span>
|
Student achievement scores in reading and math w=
ill
increase.
|
Annually
|
District Level Administrators, Helen Hamilton; M=
ike
Horn
Building Principals
|
|
|
F.2 Desig=
nate
the name and role of the person (e.g., Karen Sm=
ith,
assistant principal) overseeing the objective(s).
|
|
Dr. Mark G. Collins, Superintendent
Herrin CUSD No. 4
|
|
<=
/o:p>
SECTION III: PLAN DEVELOP=
MENT,
REVIEW, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Part
A - Description of Stakeholder Involvement:
Usin=
g a
narrative, describe specifically how stakeholders (including parents, school
staff and others) have been consulted in the development or revision of the
plan. Also describe how the adult literacy service providers and public
libraries were consulted when preparing this plan. (If no adult literacy
service provider or library exists, please explain your attempts at locatin=
g these
entities within your narrative.)
Stakehold=
er
Involvement/Consultation:
Beginning in June 1996, a committee of Herrin CUSD=
No. 4
administrators, teachers, parents and community members met to formulate
plans for the development of the first district-wide three-year technol=
ogy
plan. The committee’s wo=
rk has
continued on an ongoing basis throughout the subsequent school years as
committee members up-dated strategies for ‘closing the gap’
between where we are in relation to technology and where we want to be =
in
the future and in the systematic and continuing evaluation and revision=
of
the plan. Over time, some stakeholder representatives have remained con=
stant,
but others have changed roles or have been replaced because of retireme=
nts
or moves from the area. Current stakeholders involved in the developmen=
t of
the technology plan for the three-year period July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010 and their
representative roles are listed below.=
In addition to the direct stakeholder involvement, teachers, par=
ents
and other community members ha=
ve
provided survey data used in the development of the plan.
Members of the technology
committee met to evaluate the appropriateness of the vision stateme=
nt
and determine the current status of technology implementation in the
district. Each committee member has been involved in the planning proce=
ss
by participating in group
discussions and completing=
a
written survey in answer to the question: “What would you lik=
e to
see happen in the district’s technology program over the next thr=
ee
years (July 2007-June 2010 in each of the following areas:
Parental/Community Involvement, Curriculum and Instruction, Professional
Development, Technology Deployment and Sustainability?” as part of
the planning phase. Throughout the complete cycle, including objectives,
strategies, activities and assessment methods, members met to evaluate data and develop the action plan. Representatives from the t=
wo
non-public schools within district boundaries were invited to participa=
te
on the committee, but pro=
vided
only written responses to needs assessments.
Public Li=
braries
and Adult Literacy Providers:
Herrin CUSD No. 4 has maintained a close working
relationship with the Herrin Public Library and with John A.
Logan College,
our adult literacy provider.
JALC provides personnel to coordinate adult education classes held in district facilities. The Testing/Curriculum Coordin=
ator
has been part of a team, including representatives of each district in =
the Williamson County and Michelle Hamilton
representing JALC to organize and implement a county-wide teacher inservice effort that includes techno=
logy
sessions as well as standards-related sessions. Evaluations from the inservice
session have been used to assist in planning activities in this technol=
ogy
plan.
|
|
&nbs=
p;
=
The Herrin Public Library continues to offer assistance and programs for o=
ur
students. One librarian, =
Mrs.
Irena Just, consults with district-level administrators in the developm=
ent
of grant applications for programs to be offered to our students. The on-going collaboration with library staff has provided
information for the development of the technology plan and identified
needed parent and community programs.
Herrin CUSD No. 4 continues to utilize the services
offered through Project ECHO, =
a
program sponsored by ROE #21 t=
hat
serves as an adult literacy provider for district students at-risk =
of
dropping out.
The involvement of each stakeholder in the plannin=
g,
development and assessment of the technology plan follows:
Helen Hamilton, Testing/Curriculum Coordinator &nb=
sp; =
Thomas
Harness, 5th Grade Teacher
Terry Ryker, High School Principal, Parent &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Cris
Trapani, Board Member, Business Leader
Steve Robinson, Middle School Administrator &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Cheryl
Dreyer, Principal
Non-Public School (Needs Assessment)
Mike Horn, Elementary Principal, Parent, Co-Chair<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:3'> &nb=
sp; =
Lisa
Cochran, Teacher Non-Public School (Needs Assessment)
Gary Hernbeck, K-1 Principal &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Tracey
Mills, Principal
Unity Christian
School (Needs Assessment)
Brenda Ferguson, Vocational Education &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
Cheryl Fitzgerald, Librarian
Sylvia Davidson, Middle School Technology
Robert Wrolson, District Technology Administrator<=
/p>
Melodi Coleman, Kindergarten Teacher
|
|
![](3D"2007+-+2010+Technologyplan_files/image005.gif")
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>
Part B - State the district’s inter=
net
safety policy:
Cop=
y and
paste the sections of “board adopted” policy that relates to
Internet Safety and address CIPA requirements.
THIS IS NOT YOUR AUP or HANDBOOK
|
|
At its March
27, 2007 meeting, the Herrin CUSD No. 4 Board of Education
voted to reaffirm its STUDENT
NETWORK AND INTERNET SAFETY POLICY (7540.03). The POLICY, originally adopte=
d in
February 2001, includes the following excerpt on Internet safety to
address the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA):
Policy:&nb=
sp;
The Board has
implemented technology protec=
tion
measures which block/filter Internet access to visual displays that are
obscene, child pornography or harmful to minors. The Board utilizes
software and/or hardware to monitor online activity of students to
restrict access to child pornography, as defined by the Children’=
;s
Internet Protection Act, and
other material that is obscene, objectionable, inappropriate and/or
harmful to minors. Nevertheless, parents/guardians are advised tha=
t a
determined user may be able to gain access to services on the Internet
that the Board has not authorized for educational purposes. In fact, i=
t is
impossible to guarantee students will not gain access through the Inte=
rnet
to information and communications that they and/or their parents/guard=
ians
may find inappropriate, offensive, objectionable or controversial.
Parents/Guardians assume risks by consenting to allow their child to
participate in the use of the Internet. Parents/Guardians of minors are
responsible for setting and conveying the standards that their children
should follow when using the Internet. The Board supports and respects=
each
family's right to decide whether to apply for independent student acce=
ss
to the Internet.
The Superintendent is directed to
prepare guidelines which address students' safety and security while u=
sing
e-mail, chat rooms and other forms of direct electronic communications,
and prohibit disclosure of personal identification information of mino=
rs
and unauthorized access (e.g., "hacking") and other unlawful
activities by minors online.
Building
principals are responsible for providing training so that Internet use=
rs
under their supervision are knowledgeable about this policy and its
accompanying guidelines. The Board expects that staff members will pro=
vide
guidance and instruction to students in the appropriate use of the
Internet. All Internet use=
rs
(and their parents if they are minors) are required to sign a written
agreement to abide by the terms and conditions of this policy and its
accompanying guidelines.
Guidelines:
G.1 Be polite, courteous, and
respectful in your messages to others. Use language appropriate to sch=
ool
situations in any communications made through the Board's
computers/network. Do not use obscene, profane, vulgar, sexually expli=
cit,
defamatory, or abusive language, including act of bullying, harassing,=
or
intimidating another student, in your messages.
H. Use of Internet to access, pr=
ocess,
distribute, display or print child pornography and other material that=
are
obscene, objectionable, inappropriate and/or harmful to minors is
prohibited. As such, the following material is prohibited: material th=
at
appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, and excretion; material
that depicts, describes or represents in a patently offensive way with
respect to what is suitable for minors an actual or simulated sexual a=
ct
or sexual contact, actual or stimulated normal or perverted sexual act=
s,
or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and material that lacks serious
literary, artistic, political or scientific value as to minors. Offens=
ive
messages and pictures, inappropriate text files, or files dangerous to the integrity of the Board's computers/netw=
ork
(e.g., viruses) are also prohibited.
|
|
![](3D"2007+-+2010+Technologyplan_files/image001.gif")
![](3D"2007+-+2010+Technologyplan_files/image003.gif")