Needs+Assessment

=Needs Assessment= 2.1 The following chart represents the process used to analyze the district technology needs that are addressed in the plan.
 * Assessment Process:**

This needs assessments seeks to address both process and product. In assessing the process, there are three foci; these include the following: a) Planning, management and Collaboration; b) Implementation evaluation; and c) Professional development.

In assessing the first process item, there are several critical components. Those include meetings with campus technology representatives (CTRs), as well as collaborative meetings with Curriculum and Instruction Department. Methods and indicators for assessing Planning, Management and Collaboration include on-site observations and formal/informal interviews.

The second process item is implementation evaluation. Components for this item include various activities, alignment to the State’s Long Range Plan for Technology, Campus and Teacher StaR Charts, and the Levels of Teaching Innovation (LOTI) framework. Pre-Intervention methods and/or indicators include the district and campus and teacher StaR Charts, and classroom observations using the LOTI framework. Post-intervention methods include the teacher STaR Chart, and observations with the LOTI framework, that will be implemented on an annual basis.

The third process item is Professional Learning. Professional learning has several components, including curriculum and the Technology Integration Lead Teacher (TILT) Program. Methods/indicator that will be used to assess Professional Learning include informal video interviews (http://itls.saisd.net/lead) workshop evaluations via ePath Learning Management System, on-site observations as reflected through LOTI Walkthroughs, and the [|Professional Learning Center] via the Instructional Technology & Learning Services course management system.

However, process is only one part of the needs assessment. The second part is the product that results from the process. In assessing the product, the impact on teaching, learning and administrative tasks is the primary focus. Critical components include frequency of technology use, incorporation of technology and educator to workstation ratio. These are assessed through a variety of indicators, including the Campus and Teacher StaR Charts.

Other indicators will provide information on the long-term impact of the incorporation of technology in student learning and teaching.

2.1 The following represents the process used to analyze the district technology needs that are addressed in the plan.
 * Existing Conditions:**

This needs assessments seeks to address both process and product. In assessing the process, there are three foci; these include the following: a) Planning, management and Collaboration; b) Implementation evaluation; and c) Professional development.

In assessing the first process item, there are several critical components. Those include meetings with campus technology representatives, campus instructional technologists, as well as collaborative meetings with Curriculum and Instruction Department. Methods and indicators for assessing Planning, Management and Collaboration include on-site observations and formal/informal interviews.

The second process item is implementation evaluation. Components for this item include various activities, alignment to the State’s Long Range Plan for Technology, StaR Chart, and the Levels of Technology Implementation (LOTI) framework. Pre-Intervention methods and/or indicators include the district and campus StaR Chart, and the Teacher STaR Chart. Post-intervention methods include the LOTI framework as the guide for classroom observations.

The third process item is Professional Development. Professional development has several components, including curriculum and the technology competency certification plan (TCCP). Methods/indicator that will be used to assess Professional Development include workshop evaluations, formal/informal interviews, on-site observations, and document tracking via the Instructional Technology web site.

However, process is only one part of the needs assessment. The second part is the product that results from the process. In assessing the product, the impact on teaching, learning and administrative tasks is the primary focus. Critical components include frequency of technology use, incorporation of technology and educator to workstation ratio. These are assessed through a variety of indicators, including the StaR Chart as a pre/post intervention survey once a year. Also included are the campus access surveys, a survey completed by campuses on a continuous basis.

Additional measures used to assess need included the Campus Technology Representatives (CTR) Adoption Survey, the Administrators' Technology Assessment Survey. The Administrators' Technology Assessment was developed by adapting the Technology Standards for School Administrators developed as part of the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS).

2.3 The following is a summary of the technology needs and issues identified by the needs assessment.
 * Technology Needs:**

A comprehensive needs assessment utilizing teacher/student surveys, interviews, focus group sessions, inventories and the Texas Campus STaR Chart was conducted to analyze the current status of technology in the district and determine future needs. Items analyzed included: infrastructure, hardware, software, programs, courses, student achievement, technology resources, staff development, and technical support. Findings from this needs assessment are as follows.

• Infrastructure. The District’s network infrastructure must be able to support responsive access to Internet resources through greater bandwidth, and modern up-to-date equipment, and software. The on-line student assessment programs and grade book program require responsive reliable Internet connectivity. The digital curriculum program or streaming video also requires high level of bandwidth and is reliable. The District must also be positioned to support future voice-over-IP initiatives that will place a telephone in every classroom.

Finally, the District infrastructure must continue to establish a wireless infrastructure to support the multitude of wireless laptops and personal digital assistants (PDAs) being purchased by schools and administrative staffs.

• Hardware. SAISD currently owns more than 19,600 computers that are located in its 92 campuses. Of these computers, over 49% are over five years old and, while still in use, are considered obsolete.

These numbers are tracked and assessments performed through the use of fixed assets data and through a campus self-reporting tool called the Campus Access Survey (CAS). Through fixed assets and CAS we are able to determine where the computers are located, how they are used and their age.

Other significant data is tracked and used when updating the District’s hardware access plan such as the number of labs, the hardware platform, Internet connectivity, etcetera. It is the District’s goal to provide access for all students to current technology, technology that is one – five years old. To meet this goal the District reviews the hardware assessment annually and determines the areas of greatest need. Funding is then allocated to support those areas most in need.

In order to make current technology more accessible, the District is moving toward mobile, wireless technology. This initiative will begin with high schools and the purchase of 33 mobile laptop carts with 24-wireless laptops. These laptops will be shared throughout the campus as the need permits making technology available to students, whenever they are.

Desktop computers will still be used in the areas that are served better through this type of technology such as administrative areas and Career and Technology Labs. In addition, the District is pursuing an initiative to provide a mobile, wireless laptop for every teacher. Most classrooms have computers, but few have a computer that is dedicated solely for teacher use.

As more information is available electronically and more automated resources are implemented, it is becoming critical that every teacher have a tool for accessing that information and those resources. With a mobile, wireless laptop the teacher will have a tool that can be used where they do their work – in the classroom and in the home – and that can be used to support the growing need for professional development.

• Software. Per the Campus Technology Planning Guide ([]), SAISD has standardized the District elementary schools on productivity tools (e.g. MS Office) and keyboarding software (e.g. Type to Learn). Continuing in that effort, two other tools remain - graphic organizers and age-appropriate multimedia tools. These are two critical tools for elementary students, as well as K-8, especially in light of the new TAKS.

Graphic organizers for all campuses were purchased in 2004-2005 school year and are currently deployed across the District ([]).

The district should have standardized applications supporting State and National Technology Applications standards as well as content area connections. Standardizing on appropriate software (e.g. Inspiration/Kidspiration) will allow more efficient and effective District teacher training and support and better software purchasing aligned to TEKS district-wide. This profound need has been exacerbated by the fact that while hardware has been purchased at the campus level, new software specifications exceed the technology now available at campuses.

• Student Achievement. During the period 2002-2003 school year, SAISD was 90% economically disadvantaged in comparison to a state rate of 52%. TAKS scores, while aligned with the state in the economically disadvantage group lagged behind the state scores with 65% passing math, 79% passing writing, 55% passing science, and 86% passing social studies. Groups such as Limited English Proficient students are well behind, and at grade nine only 25% pass TAKS. SAISD has the highest mobility rate of any urban district with 32.3% of students moving during the year (state rate is 21.1%). The four year dropout rate is 8.3%, but special education students dropout at a rate of 17.7% and LEP students at the rate of 11.3%.

• Staff Development. Previous to 2003 school year, professional development in regards to technology professional development has not been focused or aligned to SBEC Standards. As such, in spring 2004, the District chose to administer the Levels of Technology Implementation (LOTI) questionnaire, as well as provide training to unfunded campus technology representatives (who meet monthly), campus principals and instructional coordinators. A detailed set of reports by district and campus is available online at []

The Levels of Technology Implementation (LOTI) provides each teacher, administrator and library media specialist detailed assessment that will help guide professional development in San Antonio ISD. This assessment has been completed for the last 3 years.

Based on the data from the LOTI currently being administered, is that 34% of educators are at Level 0 of the Levels of Technology Implementation (LOTI). Level 0 can be described as follows: Technology-based tools (e.g., computers) are either (1) completely unavailable in the classroom, (2) not easily accessible by the classroom teacher, or (3) there is a lack of time to pursue electronic technology implementation. Existing technology is predominately text based (e.g., ditto sheets, chalkboard, and overhead projector). This is a level lower than the Texas STaR Chart's Early Tech.

For the 2004-2005 school year, however, 34% decreased to 27%, a difference of 7%. At Level 1, the District saw a corresponding increase of 8%, increasing from 13% to 21%. At levels 3, 4, and 5 of the LOTI, the District saw small increases of 1% or more.

In 2003-2004, 17%--compared to 18% for 2004-2005 school year--of staff are at the target technology level of progress in the Texas STaR Chart. This means that while the majority of campuses may claim that they are the "Developing Tech" level of progress, more detailed assessment shows that SAISD is in greater need for targeted professional development than indicated by the Texas STaR Chart data.

This need can be addressed through increased access to hardware, standardized software purchases, and a district-coordinated technology competency certification plan (TCCP). Unfortunately, the TCCP lacks the funding for completion incentives should the entire district participate. Additional survey data collection is available online at []

• Technical Support. The District requires a technical support staff capable of supporting, maintaining, and troubleshooting routers, switches, servers, PCs, MACs, laptops (wired and wireless) and PDAs. This type of equipment is housed at schools and administrative locations. In addition, the technical staff must be able to diagnose and fix district-supported software and solve connectivity issues to Region 20 and application service providers (LightSpan).