Technology

Includes challenge grant applications and newspaper clippings
t Tech97.doc d8 Challenge Grants for Technology in Education Summary of readers critical remarks from 1996 LRSD proposal Topics and Comments Potential Response in 1997 Proposal Strategy______ lack of continuity between abstract and narrative on focus of project activities greater clarification of expected interaction between stakeholders, stronger relationship between partner involvement and objectives more detail on specifics and strategies - how technology will impact curriculum modules, developing a database for library research is too nebulous explain what is being done before telling who will do it provide more detail about secondary programs and integration of technology identify possible initiatives beyond the chosen themes create cross-curriculum, interdisciplanary modules. Avoid specialization only in math/science explain how elementary program will be implemented within existing curriculum identify experience with similar projects (district technology plan) staff development should be provided by people familiar with the classroom and integration of technology. UALR staff should be more involved in lesson design and development include more teacher involvement in the planning Revise abstract Revise narrative Get input from program partners and revise narrative Revise narrative Revise narrative Revise narrative Revise narrative Revise narrative Get input from technology committee and revise narrative Review project role with UALR and revise narrative Revise narrative Partnerships/Inclusion__________________ increase community and business partnerships include a community impact component in the evaluation graduating students should be represented in the consortium Include description of Vital Link program Get input from evaluator (Horizon Research) and revise narrative Revise narrativeJ Access__________________________________ availability of public access sites when parents/students can get to them - evenings and weekends sufficient placement of equipment at public access sites Identify the eight schools to be involved in Year 1 identify University library as already being on-line add a national component and an interschool teacher-to-teacher component to the dissemination plan Revise narrative Revise narrative Revise narrative Revise nanative Revise narrative Finance_________________________________ LEA support to equipment unbalanced vs. Program funds consultant budgets and director salary are high Financial support available from consortium members identify intent to maintain program staff after grant period clarify cost of public access sites - what will be bought and what provided in-kind too much staffing in network engineers Can Title I funds be used as match? Unclear what action to be taken Unclear what action to be taken Include costs of Vital Link program Revise narrative Revise narrative Reduce budget accordingly Contact national office for clarificationDATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Kc LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Procurement & Materials Management 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, AR 72202 0/ras December 19, 1995 Board of Directors Ujiarles Neal, Director, Procurement Fred Smith, Manager, Support Services iiTOndenf d'- d 1996 Of/jc* vA.'-. D -'Stii'jii'ijn Monitc:i,-
g lj^6 "J SUBJECT: Bidding Process/for Purchasing Computers This report is in response to a request from Board members during the December 7, 1995 agenda meeting. It is understood that the request contains two requirements
(1) the bidding process for purchasing computers, and (2) an interest in reviewing all bids received. A. Bidding Process for Purchasing Computers The process for buying computers is no different from buying any other commodity. If the anticipated cost exceeds $5,000, the purchase will be accomplished by soliciting competitive formal bids or proposals. To assist in understanding the procurement process as practiced in this District for many years, there is enclosed that portion of our procedures manual which covers bidding procedures (Section 7.4.4). (A part of this section was provided to the Board recently in response to another request.) The criteria for bidding is established in paragraph B at the bottom of page 26 (page one of enclosure). L Formal Bids and Proposals: Formal bidding is described at paragraph C.l, page 27 and formal proposals at paragraph C.3, same page. Formal bids and proposals may be referred to as sealed bid/proposals in some governmental agencies and entities. Unless otherwise exempt, all commodity purchases estimated to exceed $5,000 shall be competitively purchased under these guidelines. 2. Informal Bidding: Informal bidding is a less formal method of purchasing which allows for getting the needed commodity to the user more expeditiously while still seeking competitive pricing. This method is used for low dollar value purchases. A minimum of three vendors are solicited. Commodity purchases estimated to exceed $2,000, but less than $5,000, may be purchased through informal methods
i.e., telephone quotes, etc. See paragraph C.5, page 29.3- Acquisition Decisions Versus Contract/Bid Award Decisions: In the acquisition process, there are two decision points. The decision to acquire needed commodities, programs or services is a financial decision and takes place during the budget and program planning process. The actual purchasing process is merely the administrative function that occurs in obtaining those goods and services previously approved for acquisition. The Procurement Office, in coordination with the requisitioning office school, as appropriate, decides which vendor is awarded the order or contract. The Procurement Office does not establish requirements or play a role in financial decisions other than those pertaining to its own internal departmental needs. or 4. Commodity Descriptions and Specifications: Development of the type and scope of service to be performed and/or specification is initially the responsibility of the using department or school. A full explanation of this function is found in paragraph 26 on page 40 of the enclosure. B. Review of All Bids Received It is assumed that this request pertains only to computer bids. The Procurement Office has provided copies of all computer bid actions accomplished this fiscal year. We have also included a typical Food Services, Plant Services and Supply Center bid file as a sampling of what the bid process entails. Last year the Procurement Office generated 276 bids. This year we have issued 93 to date.7.1 general policy 7.1.1. Introduction 7.1.2 Board Policies 7.1.3 7.1.4 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.2.6 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 7.3.5 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.4.4 7.4.5 INDEX Governing Purchasing -entralized Purchasing Systems Goal procedures for General PURCHASING FROM Mandatory Purchasing Supply Catalog Requisitions Procedures Pages 1-2 Pages 3-5 Page 6 Page 7 Preparing a Requisition Returns and Credits INITIATING A PURCHASE General Purchasing Lead Preparation of Purchase Orders Time the supply CENTER Page 8 Page 8 Page 8 Pages 8-9 Page 9 Page lo Page 11 a Purchase Requisition Textbook Purchases responsibilities. General regulations and bid Page 11 Page 11 Pages 11-13 Pages procedures Mission and Regulation Responsibilities and Procedures Bidding Procedures Capital Equipment (Fixed Asset) Purchases Pages 15-16 Pages 17-19 Pages 20-25 Pages 26-44 Pages 45-5626 7.4.4 Bidding Procedures 'A. Definitions of Commonly Used Biddincr extracted from Model Procurement Government Purchasing Manual) Terms. (Definitions Code and State and Local 1. Invitation for Bid.s (IFB) - used for competitive bidding, mateJiill suoll^vernments far the purchaseof ec^i^wn^ wheSer attaSS r. construction. (2) All documents souSting b?ds ilized for (1) The solicitation document the customary method used bv (2) All documents, 2 . ssKMassafg ,-,s'ubs ss- solicitation document an''lnvrt7t''io 3 . 4 . B. proposals process. after proposals of the proposals and/or prior to award. {2} The Tho the competitive xuii The procedure allows changes to be made are opened and contemplates that the nature prices offered will be negotiated Reguest for Quotation (RFO) for seeking competition purchase lower than the formal bidding. L<, uioi delivery information for sole in the formal - The document generally used on small purchases or on any amount that :---' - - or , requires competitive Can be used for obtaining price and -source and emergencies. Re<^est_for Information (RFI) - primarily to locate providers of in informal. A sourcing document used goods or services. data, _--- Used uncompetitive solicitation of information. comments, suppliers/contractors. always, followed by issuance of a Request for Pronosal a multi-step bidding procedure. or reactions from Normally, but not possible necessarily or Criteria for Bidding Competitive bidding shall be the standard method of in =11 L.11C aucuiaara i thP yion ""^ich it is feasible, the best interest of the district. otherwise authorized by policy purchasing advantageous or in As a minimum, unless or regulation, all purchases and minimum. contracts in which the^stimated cost may exceed accomplished by the formal bidding shall Further, purchases and process. or more,'shall bec. d. 28 Proposals are to be sealed by the vendor and delivered to the designated address by the designated ____ Unlike formal bids, proposals do not require a public Precautions must be taken to avoid disclosure reading. time. of contents to competing offerors in the event followup negotiation is needed. Proposals may be accessible to the public after awarding, provided confidentiality provisions are not violated. Written or oral discussions may be conducted with responsible offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award for the pu2rpose of clarification to assure full understanding and responsiveness to, the of, to solicitation requirements. responsiveness assure to, Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with ' respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals, and such revisions may be permitted after submission to and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining best and final offers. There shall be no disclosure of any information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors. ' ' from proposals Discussion need not be conducted: (1) with respect to prices, where such prices fixed by law or regulation, except consideration shall be given to competitive terms and conditions
are that (2) where time of delivery or performance will not permit discussions
or (3) where can be clearly demonstrated and documented the existence of adequate competition or accurate prior cost experience with that commodity or service that it from demonstrated of These particular service acceptance of an initial offer without discussion would result in fair and reasonable prices, and the Request for Proposals notifies all offerors of and the possibility that award may be made on the basis of the initial offers. two methods of source selection. bids proposals, differ fundamentally in the following ways: versus Under competitive bidding, judgmental factors may be used only to determine if the supply or service bid meets the purchase Under competitive proposals, judgmental factors may be used not only to determine if the items or services being offered meet the procurement description but also to evaluate competing proposal description. competitive s.6 . Procurement of Professional and Personal Services: a. Professional professional engineering. Services: services as Arkansas legal, law 30 defines architectural, and land surveying. __ __ 801/805) further requires that procurement of these services be accomplished through contract negotiation, as opposed to competitive bidding. Selection made on the basis of demonstrated The law (19-11- shall is accomplished through competitive of competence and qualifications for the type of services required and at fair and reasonable prices. Solicitation be accomplished by requesting statements of qualifications. shall In evaluating the qualifications of each firm. District shall consider: the (1) the specialized experience and technical expertise of the_ firm with respect to the type of professional services required
(2) The capacity and capability of the firm to perform the work in question, including specialized services, within the time limitations fixed for the completion of the.project, (3) The past record of performance of the firm with respect to such factors as control of costs, quality of work, and ability to meet schedules and deadlines
and (4) The firm's, proximity to and familiarity with the area in which the project is located. Selection: The qualified firms. District shall select three (3) The District shall then select the firm best qualified and capable of performing the desired work and negotiate a contract for the project with the firm selected. Negotiation of contracts: (a) For the basis of negotiations, the District and the selected firm shall jointly prepare a detailed, written description of the scope of the proposed services. (b) If the District is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm selected, negotiations with that firm shall be unable terminated. shall The District shall then undertake negotiations with another of the qualified firms selected. If there is a failing of accord with the second firm, negotiations with such firm shall be terminated. If there is The District shall undertake negotiations with the third qualified firm.32 (2) In the absence of clear statutory guidelines, the District will attempt, when feasible, to acquire personal services by the same method used in the procurement of professional services. D. Procedures 1. Late Bids: All formal invitations for bid specify a bid number, day, hour and place for the public opening of the bid. Each vendor has the responsibility for ensuring that his bid arrives in time to be considered. The only late bids that may be considered at the discretion of the of Director of Procurement are those bids that are delayed as a result incorrect handling by the Procurement the Department or district personnel. All other late bids will be refused and filed unopened with date of receipt stamped on outside of envelope. 2 . 3 . 4 . Mistakes or Withdrawal of Bids: _______________ Correction of patent or provable in bids which do not prejudice other bidders, may be allowed upon approval of the Director of errors Procurement. In the event of an obvious error or under other circumstances considered excusable, the Director of Procurement may allow the vendor to withdraw his bid with or without prejudice. Prior to the opening of any bid, the vendor may withdraw his bid for any reason. The bid may be resubmitted any time prior to the stated opening time and date established for that bid. Penalty for withdrawal of a bid may, at the discretion of the Procurement Director, result in the disqualification of that vendor on future bids. year. Period of disqualification not to exceed one (1) Bid Openinos: Formal bids shall be opened publicly in the presence of one or more witnesses at the time and place designated in the Invitation for Bids. Each bid, together with the name of the bidder, shall be recorded. Upon evaluation and award, bids will be open for public inspection, except as protected under applicable provisions allowing vendors right of nondisclosure. shall be recorded. Award: Award will be made as promptly as possible to the responsive and responsible bidder or offeror whose bid or proposal is most economical for the purpose(s) intended according to criteria set forth in the solicitation.10 . 11. 12 . 13 . 14 . Commodities Provided, 34 available only a single source, that the purchasing official determines in from writing that it is -not practicable to use other than the required or designated commodity or service and a copy of the statement is attached to the purchase file. Purchasing Official: Purchasing Official shall mean the Board of Directors of any school district or a lawfully designated agent of the school district with authority to contract or make purchases on behalf of the school district. or Purchase Price: bid price of any commodity, trade-in. Purchase Price shall mean the full sale or without any allowance for Purchase: Purchase shall mean and include not only the outright purchase of a commodity but also the acquisition of commodities under rental-purchase agreements or leasepurchase agreements or any other type of agreements whereby the school district has an option to buy the commodity and to apply the rental payments on the purchase price thereof. Open Market Purchases: Open Market Purchases shall mean those purchases of commodities by any purchasing official in which competitive bidding is not required. Exempt Commodities: ___ The following commodity classes exempt from competitive bidding: are Advertising in electronic and print media, periodicals and related publications. b. Fees, including medical fees and physician fees. Freight and storage charges and demurrage. d. Licenses. e. a. c. e. f. Maintenance on office machines and technical equipment. Membership in professional, trade and other similar associations. g- Postage. h. Services of visiting speakers, lecturers and performing artists. 1. Taxes. j Travel expense items, transportation charges. such as room and board and17. 36 A sole-source supplier is the only acceptable vendor who is able to furnish the product or service. Although documentation and technical assistance may be required from the user department, the Procurement Director is responsible for making sole-source determination. In doing so, the following must be considered: a. b. c. d. e. Is there a lack of responsible competition for a product or service which is vital to the operation of the district? Does the supplier possess exclusive capabilities? Is the product or service unique and easily established as one-of-a-kind? Can program requirements be modified competitive products or services may be used? so that Are there patented or proprietary rights that fully demonstrate: (1) a feature providing a superior utility not obtainable from similar products? (2) a product is available from only one prime source, and not merchandized through wholesalers, jobbers or retailers where competition could be encouraged? (3) What would the user do if the product or service were discontinued? Care must be taken to avoid making sole-source purchases because of a preference for a particular brand. Central purchasing must examine the intended use of the product or service and assure that only one supplier is capable of satisfying the intended use. The Procurement Department challenge all representations that would limit Each must competition or the rationale of "standardization". question of standardization/interchangeability requires Procurement seek an interface which will permit competition, while not diminishing acceptable quality and utility. Bidder List: to Opportunity shall be provided for all responsible vendors to conduct business with the district and the Director of Procurement shall develop and maintain of potential bidders for the various types of lists materials, equipment and supplies. the various types Such bidders lists shall be used in the development of a mailing list for distribution of specifications and Invitations for Bids. All responsible vendors may be included in this list upon request.19 . 20 . 38 (2) Any bidder who request in writing to be removed from a bidders list shall be removed. Qualified Vendor File: The Director of Procurement is responsible for qualifying and maintaining a listing of vendors and bidders authorized to do business with the district. Bid invitation mailings shall include those vendors and suppliers pre-qualified and in good -standing with the district. Pre-qualification shall not preclude or prevent a written determination. Discrualifications of Vendors: The Director of Procurement may disqualify a vendor on a bid under consideration for any one or combination of the following reasons: a. Bidders product does not meet district specifications or bid conditions. b. Bid is not received on the district's Invitation for Bids form. c. Bid not signed. d. Required bid bond not furnished. e. Failure to comply with bid instructions, terms and conditions that are judged to be essential to the competitive bid process and the best interest to the district. Disqualification considered for any reasons: of vendors on future bids may be one or combination of the following a. Refusal of the vendor to complete a contract or bid. b. Vendors past history of late deliveries, shipments and incomplete shipments. partial c. Vendors products have proven unreliable, unworkable or have not accomplished the result requested in the district specifications. 21. Right of Nondisclosure and Confidentiality: When requested by a bidder or offeror, and except as otherwise provided by law, information furnished by a bidder or offeror shall not be disclosed outside the Procurement Department without prior written consent by the bidder or offeror. * provision is This not intended to prohibit disclosing such information with certain appropriate officials of the district and its attorneys.40 Bid invitations requiring a performance and payment bond are specifically stated in the Invitation for Bids. in the amount of one hundred per cent (100%) Bonds of the contract amount are required, unless specifically pre-set at a lesser amount by the Director of Procurement. 26. Specifications: To provide a common basis for bidding, specifications should set out the essential characteristics provide for bidding of the items being purchased so that all bidders or offerors know exactly what is wanted and can accurately bidr. Assuring that specifications contain compute their bids. essential requirements relates- directly to the aspects of proper quality level. In purchasing, quality means the suitability or adequacy of a product to the intended use. Either over-specifying or under-specifying is wasteful. Commodities purchased should be capable of performing as necessary and be as durable as needed but they should not have any unnecessary frills or status features. Requiring unnecessary features can also result in a specification that is so restrictive that it defeats the objective of promoting competition. When practical, requirements should be expressed in generic terms. Specification may be classified standard: as standard and non- a. Standard - specification is developed for repeated use, in the sense that it can be lifted from a file, ready to use. b. Non-standard - specification is prepared for particular procurement and connotes a one-time use. a Types of specifications: a. Design^ - design specifications set the requirements for the item to be purchased by detailing the characteristics that the item must possess, and usually means that is written in such detail that it it IS describes how the product is to be manufactured. Normally accompanied with drawings or blue prints. Classified as non-standard. b. Performance - performance specifications set out the performance or functional requirements that a product must meet. Describe the capabilities that the product must satisfy. Generally, performance specifications provide the best approach. Performance specifications normally fall into the standard classification. c. Combination - combination specifications are written to include features from both the performance and design types. Carefully prepared specifications customarily contain both design and performance requirements.28 . 42 If the protesting bidder or offeror is not satisfied with the findings and ruling of the Director of Procurement and wishes to pursue the protest beyond the jurisdiction of the district, the bidder or offeror may seek such remedy as may be allowed by applicable state law. However, in no event can the district accept liability in excess of reasonable expenses solicitation. actually incurred in connection with the Vendor Susnension or Debarment: The Director of Procurement may, at any time, suspend or debar a vendor for cause. The Director may convene a hearing when it becomes known that a breach, anticipatory breach or that an extraordinary circumstance has occurred. - The Director must give notice and opportunity for the vendor to be heard and then issue a written opinion stating the action taken and the reasons. This opinion will be final unless the vendor seeks remedy in court of appropriate jurisdiction. The causes for suspension or debarment include but are not limited to the following: a. Conviction for commission of a criminal offense as an incident to obtaining or attempting to obtain a public or private contract subcontract, or in the or performance of such contract or subcontract. b. Conviction under state or federal statutes embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification of or destruction of records, receiving stolen property or any other offense indicating lack of business integrity business honesty which currently, seriously and directly affects responsibility as a or contractor. a c. Conviction under state or federal antitrust statutes arising out of submission of bids or proposals. d. Violation of contract provisions, as set forth below, of a character which is regarded by the Procurement Director to be action: so serious as to justify debarment (1) deliberate failure without good cause to perform in accordance with the specifications or within (2) a the time limit provided in the contract
recent record of failure or to perform or of unsatisfactory performance in accordance with the terms of one or more contacts
provided that failure to perform or unsatisfactory performance caused by acts beyond the control of the contractor shall not be considered to be a basis for debarment.44 b. Default - a default in performance by a contractor for which a contract may be terminated shall include but shall not necessarily be limited to failure to perf the contract according to its terms, orm conditions and specifications or failure to make delivery within the time specified or according to a schedule fixed by the contract. c. Contractor's liability surety, if the contractor and/or his a performance or payment bond has been required under the contract, shall be jointly and severely liable to the district for any and all loss or damage as provided in the contract between the district and the contractor as a result of the contractor's default
provided, however, that a contractor's surety liability shall not exceed the final sum specified in the contractor's bond.Memorandum To: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Marvin Schwartz, LRSD Grants Writer Date: April 21, 1997 Re: Federal technology proposal RECESV'^ts APR 2 2 199/ OmCEOF OKGfiGAT(ON MONITORING Ive sent copies of the following items: a 1997 program fact sheet and activities summary full text of the 1997 program guidelines 1996 proposal submitted by LRSD summary of readers critical remarks from 1996 (The positive comments are not listed) The abstract will give you a good sense of the 1996 proposal, then look on page 6 for a list of the consortium members and on page 55 for a program organization chart. I believe ODM can provide specific assistance in the Student Needs section (page 2) by helping create a tri-district profile. This would reduce the response burden on PCSSD and NLR, as well as offer an objective presentation of information. The 1996 proposal was rated highly on its presentation of Section 2. Readers wrote that the section made its point well and concisely. I think enhancing the section with similar data from the other districts would be the best and easiest way to go. Of course, this may not be necessary if I get no response or they decline the offer to come on board. I asked for specific input from each district no later than May 30. Its already been more than a week and neither has even said yes or no. I agree that bringing the other districts in will dramatically delay and complicate this proposal. But Ive got to do everything possible to make this piece as competitive as possible. With the other districts, we will virtually double our student population level. Well also create a wider community consortium and greater outreach to low income neighborhoods. I Thanks for your interest and support of this project. I look forward to speaking with you again soon. 1hili, Memorandum To: zVin Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Marvin Schwartz, LRSD Grants Writer Date: April 21, 1997 APR 2 2 I, OFFiCE vr Re: Federal technology proposal Ive sent copies of the following items: a 1997 program fact sheet and activities summary full text of the 1997 program guidelines 1996 proposal submitted by LRSD summary of readers critical remarks from 1996 (The positive comments are not listed) The abstract will give you a good sense of the 1996 proposal, then look on page 6 for a list of the consortium members and on page 55 for a program organization chart. I believe ODM can provide specific assistance in the Student Needs section (page 2) by helping create a tri-district profile. This would reduce the response burden on PCSSD and NLR, as well as offer an objective presentation of information. The 1996 proposal was rated highly on its presentation of Section 2. Readers wrote that the section made its point well and concisely. I think enhancing the section with similar data from the other districts would be the best and easiest way to go. Of course, this may not be necessary if I get no response or they decline the offer to come on board. I asked for specific input from each district.no. later than May 30. Its already been more than a week and neither has even said yes or no. I agree that bringing the other districts in will dramatically delay and complicate this proposal. But Ive got to do everything possible to make this piece as competitive as possible. With the other districts, we will virtually double our student population level. Well also create a wider community consortium and greater outreach to low income neighborhoods. Thanks for your interest and support of this project. I look forward to speaking with you again soon. 1Program Fact Sheet Program Project Period Range of Awards Average Size of Award Submission Date TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE GRANTS U.S. Dept, of Education 5 years $250,000 to $1,500,000 per year. $900,000 per year May 30, 1997 Program Purposes 1. Utilize educational technologies to improve learning and meet National Education Goals. 2. Organize schools to make computers and information networks accessible to students and teachers in learning activities integrated with the curriculum. 3. Provide opportunities for improved learning in homes, libraries, and community centers Suggested Goals 1. 2. 3. Increase student achievement in content area Provide teachers with training appropriate for technology utilization in the classroom Integrate innovative learning technologies into the curriculum to improve learning productivity in the community. Program Priority Communities with great need for access to new technologies Areas with a high levels of disadvantaged students Active participation of teachers, students, and parents Use of Grant Funds Challenge grants will provide seed money for implementing promising new technologies in specific learning communities. These includes the development of new curriculum, professional development, and the evaluation of educational effectiveness. Eligible Applicants A consortium including at least one local educational agency with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty line. Additional consortium members should include: other local educational agencies institutions of higher education businesses/software designers other appropriate organizations. state educational agencies museums academic content experts libraries Consortium Obligations Partners in the consortia are expected to make substantial commitments for the costs of equipment, software development, technical support, and any other costs. The total value of commitments made by members of the consortium should significantly exceed funds provided by the challenge grantSuggested Activities Strong applications will have a well focused technical concept - an idea based on an important technology, software application, or other approach that is at an appropriate stage of development for implementation in a specific learning environment. Applications will focus on the innovative integration of these new learning technologies into the curriculum as part of a comprehensive, long-term plan for education reform. Students Help meet the National Education Goals
0 0 0 0 Contribute to school readiness and improved student achievement Smooth the transition from school to work Develop the life-long learning skills necessary to compete in the economy of the 21st century Help acquire tlie knowledge, skills, and habits of mind to get good jobs, be good citizens, and live good lives in a global community Help all children meet high academic standards: 0 0 0 Mastering core academic subjects, including reading, writing, mathematics, sciences, history, geography, and languages. Learning to acquire and communicate new information Learning to tliink mathematically, to solve problems scientifically, to reason well, and to see and express oneself artistically. Access vast electronic libraries and museums Consult with scientists, scholars, and experts around the globe Professional Development of Teachers Use a wider range of instructional resources titan is generally available today. Provide tlie tools to meet this challenge in the classroom and electronic networks to share ideas Support the integration of new learning technologies into tlie curriculum. Parents and Community Improve learning productivity in the community Support greater parent and community involvement in education Involve parents and extending learning in the home Industry partners Develop user-friendly, low maintenance systems that are cost effective and easy to scale up for widespread use Help communities generate new markets for learning technologies Opportunity for large-scale tests of innovative products or services Evaluation Plan Define benchmarks to evaluate progress toward project goals How improvements in student learning or teacher training will be assessed Measure student performance and achievement at each stage of development Develop evidence of effectiveness from the design stage onward. Selection Criteria Significance: the extent to which the project 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. offers a creative, new vision for using technology will achieve far-reaching impact will directly benefit students will ensure ongoing, intensive professional development for teachers and other personnel is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need for educational technology6. is designed to create new learning communities, and expanded markets for high-quality educational technology applications and services. Feasibility: the extent to which: 1. 2. 3. the project will ensure successful, effective, and efficient uses of technologies for educational reform that will be sustainable beyond the period of the grant
the members of the consortium or other appropriate entities will contribute substantial financial and other resources to achieve the goals of the project
and the applicant is capable of carrying out the project.Technology Innovation Challenge Grants * Applications Due: May 30, 1997 Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Education Phone: 202-208-3882 Fax: 202-208-4042 E-mail: ITO_STAFFl@ed.gov http://www.ed.gov/Technology Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are the next generation of an initiative that began as the Challenge Grants for Technology in Education, and they are counterparts of the new Technology Literacy Challenge FunkHow can we use new technology and the information superhighway to improve education and increase economic competitiveness? Modern computers and telecommunication networks are powerful tools. But the hardware alone is not enough to improve learning. Sustained professional development for teachers and effective software, well integrated with the curriculum, are essential to help students meet high academic standards. THE CHALLENGE This is an ambitious challenge. We are experiencing a scientific and technological revolution of unprecedented proportions. Everywhere we look, technology is changing the way we work and live. Everywhere, that is, but in our classrooms. In the information age, we have industrial era schools. In classrooms that could be modern communication centers for learning, the basic media of instruction are blackboards and chalk. Community leaders and educators are excited about the possibilities for transforming their classrooms into information age learning centers, but few school systems can afford the costs and risks associated with developing new, high quality applications of technology on their own. Similarly, few school systems working alone, have all the expertise and resources they need to integrate these learning innovations into the curriculum on a system-wide basis. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants provide seed money to form community partnerships that can bear these costs and marshal these resources. These consortia bring telecommunications, hardware and software expertise to schools in combination with the educational resources of universities, research institutes, libraries and museums. As catalysts for change. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants support educators and parents, industry partners, community leaders and others who are collaboratively developing new applications of technology to transform their factory era schools into information age learning centers. Some of the most exciting possibilities might flow from a creative synthesis of ideas generated by teachers and students, who are working with software developers and cognitive researchers in consortia that include: telecommunication firms and hardware manufacturers, entertainment producers, and others who are stretching our thinking about how to create new learning communities. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants have the potential to improve education by building on computer and telecommunication 2advances that create powerful new ways to discover knowledge and exchange information. We learn more when we are solving challenging problems in meaningful contexts. Our mastery of new knowledge becomes stronger when we actively collaborate with others to communicate our understanding of what we have learned. The extent of learning and the effectiveness of teaching need no longer be limited by the amount of time in the classroom or by the resources of a particular school. Teachers and students can tap vast electronic libraries and museums with a wealth of texts, video images, music, arts and languages. They can work with scientists and scholars around the globe who can help them use experimental research, primary historical documents, and authentic learning in real life settings to improve their understanding of physical phenomena and world events. Technology Innovation Challenge Grant consortia need not be limited by geography. The information superhighway creates new possibilities for extending the time, the place, and the resources for learning. It can bring high quality education and training to every classroom, workplace, and home in the community at any time of day. The information superhighway can be used to create new learning communities linking schools, colleges, libraries, museums, and businesses across the country or around the world. Technology Innovation Challenge Grant consortia are encouraged to act on their most ambitious visions for technology in education reform. But, we must not become a society in which students from low income communities, and other areas in need of technology, are left behind in the acquisition of knowledge and skills for responsible citizenship and productive work in the 21st century. Failure to include these communities will put their future, and the future of the country, at risk. In awarding Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, the U.S. Secretary of Education will evaluate the extent to which the proposed project is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest need for educational technology. 3Potential applicants should be aware that Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are highly competitive awards. In 1995 there were 530 applicants for 19 grants. In 1996 a total of 586 applicants competed for 24 grants. At the time of this announcement It Is estimated that twenty (20) new grants will be awarded by September 30, 1997. WHO CAN APPLY FOR A TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE GRANT? Challenge Grants are five-year awards, and each applicant must propose five years of activity. Grants will range from $250,000 a year to $ 1,500,000 a year, with the average being $900,(XM) a year for five years. Applications that exceed $ 1,500,000 for any year of the five year project, and applications proposing less than five full years of work, will not be considered (these applications will be returned to the applicant without review). Each application must be submitted by a Local Education Agency (LEA) on behalf of a consortium of partners with appropriate resources to develop innovative applications of technology that will address specific learning needs identified in the application (a definition of LEA appears on p. 9). Each consortium must include at least one local educational agency with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty line. Moreover, the U.S. Secretary of Education will evaluate the extent to which the assistance sought is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest need for access to educational technology. The consortium may also include other local education agencies and private schools. State Education Agencies and institutions of higher education, museums and libraries, hardware manufacturers, software designers, telecommunication firms, and other businesses or appropriate community organizations. The consortium holds the potential for a creative synergy among its members. The partners should be carefolly chosen for their potential to develop innovative applications of technology for improved learning. A consortiums efforts should be clearly designed to encourage ongoing involvement of educators, students, parents, business leaders, and others who are committed to school improvement and education reform. Specific objectives for active participation by each consortium member at each stage of development will contribute to success. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are five-year development and demonstration projects. Each consortium should have plans in place to begin start-up activities in year one, including initial trials of new learning content and sustained professional development for teachers 4(Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are not planning grants). Years two and three should be devoted to refinement and expansion of the new applications of technology. Years four and five should support system-wide adoptions that can become self sustaining after the fifth year. The Technology Innovation Challenge Grant can not be the only source of support for a consortiums work. Under the selection criteria for this competition, applications will be evaluated on the extent to which members of the consortium make substantial commitments for the costs of equipment, technical support, network linkage, telecommunication services, and other resources. Specific contributions of consortium members should be clearly identified and documented in the application. The projected contributions should be realistic and credible. The application should include convincing plans for long-term support of the innovation after the grant ends. Challenge Grant consortia are encouraged to demonstrate how other community partnerships can adapt and sustain these innovations in their schools on a cost-effective basis. Funding provided by Technology Innovation Challenge Grants should augment the investments of consortium members by supporting the development of interactive learning content, continuous professional development for teachers, and instructional strategies that integrate new technologies into the curriculum. Applications In which the primary purpose is to equip schools, build networks, or obtain operating funds for existing systems have not been successful in this competition in the past. to improve learning. Other U.S. Department of Education programs may contribute to the success of a consortiums effort, including: Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act
the Eisenhower Professional Development Program
School-to Work Opportunities
Star Schools
the Regional Technology for Education Consortia
the Regional Educational Laboratories, and the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, which is the companion initiative of the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants. Other federal agency programs also may complement or strengthen the work of a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant. The U.S. Department of Commerce helps communities to develop telecommunication infrastructure. The National Science Foundation supports the use of technology for improved mathematics and science education. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration funds initiatives to improve the use of space science data in the classroom. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development supports networked neighborhoods and the Campus of Learners in public housing. The Department of Health and Human Services is interested in carefully conceived demonstrations of how new technologies can improve learning in Head Start and pre-school settings. Funds from other federal sources, including those provided through the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, may not be commingled with Technology Innovation Challenge Grant funds, or counted as costs supported by the LEA or other sources in the budget section of the application, however. The substantive contribution of each federal effort, and the cumulative impact of these activities, should be described in the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant application. But the budget for each federally funded effort or activity must be administered separately. Consortium commitments may be augmented by state or local bond issues and funding initiatives. They may include volunteer activities such as Tech Corps, and Net Days. Additional sources of support may include foundation grants, private corporate sponsorship, and other philanthropic contributions. Technology Innovation Challenge Grant consortia may draw on a wide range of federal government sources for support. For example, with assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, communities across the country have developed district-wide and state-wide school reform plans to meet the National Education Goals, and these plans provide an ideal context for demonstrating the use of new technologies 5Oa-'erge Grarr oorsoria begh a clear of hcrw ne/.' car r~rr
,e rescrrrg x-rz ieanr-g: arr: roe rfr,r~xr.<'x "fye. 5grrfc3T ccrriojccrs r: a rrxrrr.'xif are an triregra/ part of a comprehensive plan for school improvement. New technologies can enhance school readiness and help all students meet high standards. They can promote continuous professional development for teachers and foster greater parent and community involvement in education. They can reconnect students with their communities, they can smooth the transition from school to work, and they can help develop the lifelong learning skills students will need in our 21 st century economy. WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH A TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE GRANT? industry may become an even stronger partner for education reform in response to careful planning and well articulated technology needs. Systemwide, and statewide efforts to establish clear education goals and challenging academic standards could help define what educators and families need from computers and the information superhighway. In such an environment, industry partners could assume a leadership role if they work to supply this market with user-friendly, low maintenance systems that are cost effective and easy to scale-up for widespread use. A Challenge Grant application should make a convincing case that the proposed plan of action is likely to be an effective response to significant education need, and that the consortium partners are the appropriate ones to meet that need. Strong applications have a well defined concept - - an idea for specific learning improvements - - that clearly demonstrates how a new technology will be used to improve education. To take a specific example, as part of the effort to ensure all children can read by age 8 or Grade 3, educators, business leaders and community organizations could form a consortium to develop new applications of technology to improve reading and literacy skills for young children. Becoming a competent, self-reliant reader by Grade 3 is essential to future academic achievement and later success in the work force. New technologies with interactive learning applications could give each child access to the power of OIK' to one tutoring to Improve reading. Computers and electronic networks lould liK tease the ixirtlclfxitlon of older students, and the effectiveness of parent involvement in literacy instruction. To work with these technologies effectively, teachers and students need access to interactive computer applications and networked learning resources that can generate high quality content in all of the core subjects. The 6aeation of this new content should be bolstered by continuous professional development for teachers and sustained support for students, that goes beyond the acquisition of generic computer skills to include mastery of technology applications specifically designed to improve academic achievement. Teachers and students must learn to seamlessly integrate these new learning tools into the curriculum. If this profiessional development and these technologies are embeded in the fabric of work in the school, the teachers and students themselves may particpate in the creation of engaging new learning content that meets high academic standards. In middle schools, for example, these powerful learning tools can increase student achievement in science and mathematics by elevating the content of instnjction and the rigor of student wor1< in these disciplines. It is dear from recent reports that more time on task is not enough. Middle school teachers can use these technologies to take students beyond simple problem solving to in-depth study of the scientific principles and underlying concepts behind the solutions. If they build on this learning through well- fbcused projects, high school students and teachers can use these tools to gain access to the power of scientific inquiry and mathematical reasoning at some of our best colleges, universities, research institutes, and scientific firms. In this increasingly networl<ed sodety, learners of all ages have an opportunity to worl< with an enormous wealth of Imowledge. Teachersand students should be able to use telecommunications to overcome their isolation from a multitude of scholars and rich information resources that could help them improve education. With these tools they can collaborate with their colleagues in dassrooms across the country to form new learning communities that no school system could develop on its own. LinWng middle school or high school students with college students and faculty may improve the preparation of young people for postsecondary education. Many students never consider a college education as a real possibility until they have a personal opportunity to become actively engaged with the life of these institutions. Computers and telecommunication networks can be used to strengthen the early preparation of students for college. Professional development for teachers and the design of more rigorous content should be based on a careful analysis of the learning needs of students, and it should be consistent with the schools curriculum, mission, and professional standards. Teachers, administrators, parents, and community leaders should participate in decisions about the nature of the professional development and the content of the new learning activities. A teachers primary educational partners are the students parents. When families and teachers are in effective communication, students stand a greater chance of success. If parents learn how to use technology effectively, they can bring a vast array of education resources to the home. Parents can extend the time and place for learning from the dassroom to the living room, creating new opportunities for sustained study in core disdplines. With similar applications of technology, educators can forge new alliances with business leaders and local agencies that improve education by extending learning into the community. Most of our students begin their careers directly after high school. These new technologies can be used to improve the transition from school to worl<. In a networ1<ed economy employers must have well-educated employees who make sidllful use of information technologies to increase their knowledge and improve their productivity. If these new learning tools are embedded in the day-to-day work of the classroom, they will help students develop the skills they need for successful careers. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants provide seed money to stimulate the development of promising learning technologies in specific communities. They generate fresh possibilities for software developers, cognitive researchers, education leaders and others to collaborate on the creation of a research-based generation of education software that uses recent advances in cognitive science to support improved learning. If their success is well documented, the most effective practices, and the important lessons drawn from their efforts, may receive widespread use in communities across the country. But Challenge Grant successes and lessons must be well documented. A carefully designed evaluation plan should be part of each application. It is not enough to promise that an evaluation will be done at some point in the future. A specific section of the application should explidtly describe the evaluation design that will be in place when the grant begins. The plan should establish clear benchmarl<s to monitor progress toward specific goals, and it should be explicit about how improvements in learning and instnjction will be assessed. Developing evidence of effectiveness should not be put off until the last stages of the effort. In a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant, a strong evaluation plan must be a consideration from the design stage onward and information generated by the evaluation should provide continuous feedbacl< for improvement to the project and to the wider education community. 7During the Summer of 1997, external panels of experts will review applications in a three tier process, and make recommendations to the Secretary of Education. The review panels are generally composed of individuals representing three broad perspectives: (1) teachers who use new technologies in the classroom
(2) administrators with school-wide or system-wide responsibilities for developing effective applications of technology
and (3) researchers and consultants drawn from universities, hardware manufacturers, software developers and telecommunication firms. The Secretary will use two criteria to select applications for funding: significance" and feasibility". Is it important and can it be done? SELECTION CRITERIA Significance will be determined by the extent to which the project: (1) offers a clear vision for the use of technology to help all students learn to challenging standards
(2) will achieve far-reaching impact through results, products, or benefits that are easily exportable to other settings and communities
(3) will directly benefit students by integrating acquired technologies into the curriculum to improve teaching and student achievement
(4) will ensure continuous professional development for teachers, administrators and other individuals to further the use of technology in the classroom, library, or learning settings in the community
(5) is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need for educational technology
and (6) is designed to create new learning communities among teachers, students, parents, and others, which contribute to State or local education goals for school improvement, and expand markets for high-quality educational technology or content. 8Feasibility will be determined by the extent to which: (I) the project will ensure successful, effective, and efficient uses of technologies for educational reform that will be sustainable beyond the period of the grant
(2) the members of the consortium or other appropriate entities will contribute substantial financial and other resources to achieve the goals of the project
and (3) the applicant is capable of carrying out the project, as evidenced by the extent to which the project will meet the problems identified: the quality of the project design, including objectives, approaches, evaluation plan, and dissemination plan
the adequacy of resources, including money, personnel, facilities, equipment, and supplies
the qualifications of key personnel who would conduct the project
and the applicants prior experience relevant to the objectives of the project. In the final award of grants under this program, the Secretary may also consider the extent to which each application demonstrates an effective response to the learning technology needs of areas with a with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest need for educational technology. Sweeping, unsubstantiated claims about the number of low income students or high need communities to be served should be avoided. A well documented plan for meeting specific education needs in these schools and communities should be presented. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS During 1995 and 1996, a total of 43 Challenge Grants were awarded to LEAs in communities across the country. Although these 43 LEAs are not encouraged to reenter this competition as primary applicants, they may consider participating as members of consortia in which other LEAs are the primary applicants. In such cases they are expected to demonstrate that they are not duplicating or overextending work under their current grant. DEFINITION OF A LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) An LEA is defined as follows in Title XIV, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended
...a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or for such combination of school districts or counties as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary or secondary schools. The law states further: The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary or secondary school. In other words, a local educational agency (LEA) is an entity defined under state law as being legally responsible for providing public education to elementary and secondary students. In some states this may include, under state law, an entity performing a service function for public schools, such as an intermediate service agency (ISA). The application must be submitted by a single LEA, but the LEA is not eligible to apply unless it is part of a consortium. Applications must be developed by a consortium including at least one local educational agency with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty line. The application must be submitted by a local educational agency, but a single educational agency is not eligible to apply unless it is part of a consortium that may include other local educational agencies, private schools, state educational agencies, institutions of higher education, businesses, academic content experts, software designers, museums, libraries, or other appropriate organizations. 9THE APPLICATION Each application should have the following five sections: 1. Title Page: Use the Title Page form included in these guidelines or a suitable facsimile to cover each application copy. 2. Table of Contents: Include a one-page table of contents. HOW TO APPLY 3. Abstract: Attach a one-page double-spaced abstract following the Title Page (this is in addition to the abstract requested on the Title Page itself). The abstract should mention the problem or need being addressed, the proposed activities, and the intended outcomes. Application Deadline: May 30, 1997 4. Narrative: Although a standard outline is not required, in a narrative of no more than 25 double-spaced pages, printed in 10 point font or larger, you should address the selection criteria and the issues discussed in this application package. Each submission should be concise and clearly written. Each submission should include the five sections of the Application and the six sections of the Appendix listed here. 5. Budget: Use the attached Budget Summary form or a suitable facsimile to present a complete budget summary for each year of the five-year project. Please provide a justification for this budget by including, for each year, a narrative for each budget line item, which explains: (1) the basis for estimating the costs of professional personnel salaries, benefits, project staff travel, materials and supplies, consultants and subcontracts, indirect costs, and any projected expenditures: (2) how the major cost items relate to the proposed activities
(3) the costs of evaluation
and (4) a detailed description explaining the funding provided by members of the consortium. Please include project staff travel hinds for two trips during each year of the project to Challenge Grant Project Directors meetings in Washington, D.C.
and two trips during each year of the project to regional Challenge Grant meetings. Each trip will be for three days for up to three persons. At these meetings each Challenge Grant recipient will have an opportunity to strengthen its efforts by collaborating with the other grantees funded in this program. 10THE APPENDIX Each application should be accompanied by an appendix which includes the following six numbered sections.- 1. List of Consortium Members: List all consortium members, their contact persons, addresses, telephone numbers, and Fax numbers. Similar information should be provided for other sources of support. The roles and contributions of all consortium members should be described clearly within the 25-page narrative. Letters of commitment should be included in this section of the appendix to clearly document the role and contribution of each member. 2. Project Personnel: Please provide a brief summary of the background and experience of key project staff as they relate to the specific project activities you are proposing. 3. List of Application Authors: Please list all persons who wrote the application, their organizational affiliation, the sections they worked on. and the approximate percentage of the total effort each one contributed. 4. Evidence of Previous Success: Include a brief summary of any evaluation studies, reports, or research that may document the effectiveness or success of the consortium or the activities proposed in the narrative section of the application. 5. Equitable Access and Participation: Section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) requires each applicant to include in its application a description of proposed steps to ensure equitable access to. and participation in. its f^erally-assisted program. Each application should include this description in a clearly identified section of the appendix. The statute, which allows applicants discretion in developing the required description, highlights six types of barriers that can impede equitable access or participation: gender, race, national origin, color, disability, or age. You may use local circumstances to determine the extent to which these or other barriers prevent equitable participation by students, teachers, parents or other community members. Your description need not be lengthy, but it should include a clear and succinct description of how you plan to address those barriers that are applicable to your circumstances, and it should support the discussion of similar issues in the narrative section of the application. 6. Private School Participation: Private schools may participate in Technology Innovation Challenge Grant applications as consortium members. However, if they do not participate as consortium members. Section 14503 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. as amended. (20 U.S.C. 8893) requires that a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant recipient shall, after timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials, provide private school children and teachers. on an equitable basis, special educational services or other program benefits under this program. Section 14503 further requires LEAs and educational service agencies to consult with private school officials during the design and development of a Challenge Grant application. Each application should include a specific section in the appendix which describes the consultations that have taken place, and the proposed plans for addressing the needs of private school children and teachers, should a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant be awarded. OTHER ATTACHMENTS Other attachments are not encouraged. Reviewers will have a limited time to read each application. Their consideration of the application against the selection criteria will be limited to the five sections of the Application and the six sections of the Appendix listed above. Supplementary materials such as videotapes, CD-ROMs, files on disks, commercial publications, press clippings, testimonial letters, etc. will not be reviewed and will not be returned to the applicant. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Applications may contain innovative technical or business ideas that, if released to the public, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial competitive harm to the consortium member that submitted that information. Bold legends clearly identifying information that a consortium member believes is of a proprietary nature should appear at the top and bottom of each page on which it appears. The U.S. Department of Education will take this designation into account in determining whether this information can be released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. 11HOW TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS The deadline for receipt of applications Is May 30, 1997. All applications must be received on or before that date. This closing date and procedures for guaranteeing timely submission will be strictly observed. NUMBER OF COPIES OF THE APPLICATION All applicants are required to submit one (1) signed original and two (2) copies of the application (including one unbound copy suitable for photocopying). Each copy of the application must be covered with a Title Page (form included in these guidelines) or a reasonable facsimile. All applicants are encouraged to submit voluntarily an additional four (4) copies of the application to expedite the review process. Applicants are also requested to submit voluntarily three (3) additional copies of the Title Page itself. The absence of these additional copies will not influence the selection process. All sections of the application and all sections of the appendix must be suitable for photocopying to be included In the review (at least one copy of the application should be unbound and suitable for photocopying). Malling Address, and Address for Applications Sent by Commercial Carrier Technology Innovation Challenge Grants ATTN: 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room 3633 Regional Office Building - 3 7th D Streets, S.W. (D Street, S.W. Entrance) Washington, D.C. 20202-4725 Telephone: 202-708-8493 Applications sent by mall must be received no later than May 30, 1997. Applications not received by the deadline date will not be considered for funding unless the applicant can show proof that the application was (1) sent by registered or certified mail not later than five (5) days before the deadline date
or (2) sent by a commercial carrier not later than two (2) days before the deadline date. The following are acceptable as proof of mailing: (1) a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark, (2) a legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service, (3) a dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier, or (4) any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary. Applications delivered by hand before the deadline date will be accepted daily between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Eastern Time except Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays at the Application Control Center, U.S. Department of Education, Regional Office Building 3, Room 3633, 7th and D Streets, S.W., Washington, D.C. (Telephone: 202-708-8493). Applications delivered by hand on May 30, 1997 (on the deadline date) will not be accepted after 4:00 p.m.. Eastern Time. NOTIFICATION OF AWARD Applicants will be notified by September 30, 1997 whether their application is being funded. ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS Applications selected for funding will require a signed Form ED 80-0013 (Certifications Regarding Lobbying
Debarment, Suspension ments"), Standard Form SF 424B (Assurance
and Other Responsibility Matters
and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements"), AssurancesNon-Construction Programs"), and Standard Form LLL (Disclosure of Lobbying Activities") before an award is made. THE FORMS The following forms are required in all applications. They may be photocopies as necessary. o Title Page form o Budget Summary form 12TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLLENGE GRANTS 0MB No. 1810-0569 Fonn Exp.: 3/00 According lo the Paperwork Reduction Ad of 1995. no persons are required 10 respond Io a collodion ol informalion unless il displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number lor Ibis informalion collodion is 18104)569 The limo requved to complete this information collodion is oslimaled to average 80 hours per response, including the limo lo review instrudions. search existing data resources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and review the information collodion If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the limo oslimato(s) or suggestions for improving this fonii. please write lo: U.S. DopartmonI ol Education. Washington. DC 20202-4651 If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write dirodly to: Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program U S Depatlmonl of Education. Room 606D 555 Naw Jersey Avenue NW. Washington. DC 20202-5544. This application should be sent to: No. 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room #633, ROB 3 Washington, D.C. 20202-4725 1. Application No. 2. Employer Identification No. 3. Legal Applicant (local educational agency) 4. Project Director Legal Applicant Name Name and Title Address (Complete) Address (Complete) Congressional District(s) Telephone: Fax: Area Code Number 5. Federal Funds Requested: 6. Consortium Members (other than Legal Applicant): Fill in NUMBER of each. 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Sth Year TOTAL Other LEA SEA Library Museum ____ Institution of higher ed. ____ Other non profit ____ For profit firm ____ Other 7. Duration of Project Starting Date: ___________ Ending Date: Total Number of Months: 60 8. Student Population Directly Benefiting from the Project per Year 9. Number of Teachers Directly Benefiting from the Project per Year 10. Application Title 11. Brief Abstract of Application: (Do not leave this blank) 12. Certification By Authorizing Official The applicant certifies to the best of his/her knowledge and belief that the data in this application are true and correct and that the filing of the application has been duly authorized by governing body of the applicant. Name Title Telephone Signature Date TITLE PAGE FORMInstructions for Completing Title Page Form DO NOT FORGET TO HAVE THE FORM SIGNED ITEM 1. ITEM 2. LEAVE BLANK - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: Enter the unique 12-digit number assigned to your organization called the Federal Identification Number. It can be obtained from your budget office. NOTE: No grant can be awarded without a Federal Identification Number. If you do not have one, you should initiate the process to obtain one by calling Ms Kim Nguven at (202) 708-9268. ITEM 3. LEGAL APPLICANT: Enter the name and complete mailing address of the local educational agency which will serve as the legal applicant (fiscal agent). When more than one institution or agency is involved, enter the name of the one which will be responsible for budget control. NOTE: Acknowledgments of grant awards are sent to this address. Remember to complete r.ui.. * this section fully. ITEM 4. PROJECT DIRECTOR: Enter the name and complete mailing address of the Project Director or Co-Directors (fiscal agent). If no one has been selected, so indicate and enter the name of the person who can be contacted to discuss the programmatic aspects of the project. NOTE: Name and address listed here will be used to mail notifications of application status. Do not forget to include the telephone number. Both this address and the Legal Applicant address should be detailed. Remember to complete this section fully. ITEM 5. FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED: Enter the amount of Federal funds being requested in each year of the project. Under "TOTAL" enter the cumulative amount requested for the duration of the project. ITEM 6. CONSORTIUM MEMBERS: Include the number of each type of consortium member organization included in the consortium. ITEM 7. ITEM 8. DURATION OF THE PROJECT: Enter appropriate starting and ending dates. STUDENT POPULATION DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM THE PROJECT PER YEAR: Simple student count as of Fall 1996 will suffice. ITEM 9. NUMBER OF TEACHERS DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM THE PROJECT PER YEAR: Enter the number of teachers. ITEM 10. APPLICATION TITLE: Self-explanatory. ITEM 11. BRIEF ABSTRACT OF APPLICATION: Keep concise and confined to the space provided, but in no case should you leave this blank. Also see instructions under "How to Apply: Application Content" for submitting a separate one-page abstract. ITEM 12. CERTIFICATION BY AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL: Enter the name, title, and telephone number of the official who has the authority both to commit the Legal Applicant to accepting Federal funding and to execute the proposed project. Submit the original ink-signed copy of the authorizing official's signature. IBudget Item 5 Year Budget Summary (YEARS 4 AND 5 ARE ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM) Requested YEAR 1 Support by LEA or other sources Total Requested YEAR 2 Support by LEA or other sources Total A. Direct Costs 1. Salaries (professional 2. Employee Benefits 3. Employee Travel & Clerical) 4. Equipment (purchase) 5. Materials & Supplies 6. Consultants & Contracts 7. Other (equip, rental, printing, etc) 8. Total Direct Costs B. Indirect Costs I TOTAL I I I Requested A. Direct Costs YEAR 3 Support by LEA or other sources Total 1. Salaries (professional & Clerical) 2. Employee Benefits 3. Employee Travel 4. Equipment (purchase) 5. Materials & Supplies 6. Consultants & Contracts 7. Other (equip, rental, printing, etc) 8. Total Direct Costs B. Indirect Costs I I TOTAL I Note: Items 1 through 7 are budget line subtotals that are to be described in the Detailed Budget.Budget Summary (continued) Budget Item Requested YEAR 4 Support by LEA or other sources Total Requested A. Direct Costs YEARS Support by LEA or other sources Total \ 1. Salaries (professional & Clerical) 2. Employee Benefits 3. Employee Travel 4. Equipment (purchase) 5. Materials & Supplies 6. Consultants & Contracts 7. Other (equip, rental, printing, etc) 8, Total Direct Costs B. Indirect Costs I I TOTAL I I [ I I Note: Items 1 through 7 are budget line subtotals that are to be described in the Detailed Budget.CHECK: The Application Title page has been completed according to the instructions on the back of the title page. The Application Title page has been signed and dated by an authorized official and the signed original has been included with your submission. APPLICATION PACKAGE CHECKLIST SUBMIT ONE ORIGINAL PLUS TWO COPIES OF THE APPLICATION AND THE APPENDIX (INCLUDING ONE UNBOUND COPY SUITABLE FOR PHOTOCOPYING), PLUS FOUR VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL COPIES. EACH COPY SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: APPLICATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MAY 30, 1997 The Application: the title page (page I) table of contents (page 2) an abstract (page 3 - one page mciximum) a narrative (up to 25 pages double-spaced) the budget summary form, and a detailed budget justification The Appendix: list consortium members list project personnel list application authors evidence of success equitable participation private school participation In addition to the above, include three (3) additional copies of the title page. ADDRESS AND DEADLINE DATE: Technology Innovation Challenge Grants ATTN: 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room 3633, Regional Office Building - 3 Washington, D.C. 20202-4725 Telephone: 202-708-8493 REMEMBER: Applications mailed or sent by commercial carrier must be received by May 30, 1997. Hand delivered applications must be received no later than 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time on May 30, 1997.In response to the technology challenges facing American education, President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced the Technology Literacy Challenge on February 15, 1996. The Challenge calls on business and community leaders to join forces with educators to guarantee every student in America can use computers and the information superhighway to prepare for responsible citizenship and productive employment in the 21st Century. The Technology Literacy Challenge is targeted at four concrete goals: equipping all classrooms with modern computers
connecting all classrooms to the Internet
developing engaging software and networked learning content to help all students meet high standards
and preparing all teachers to integrate these new technologies into the curriculum. THE TECHNOLOGY LITERACY CHALLENGE The U.S. Department of Education is implementing the Technology Literacy Challenge through a two-part strategy consisting of: the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and Technology Innovation Challenge Grants. These twin initiatives strengthen the capacity of local partnerships to improve education by helping them to: ensure new technologies support high quality learning, accelerate the use of proven technology innovations in education, and provide equitable technology access for all students. The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund provides formula grants to state education agencies. These grants help them implement state-wide technology plans through competitive funding to local education agencies that are using new technologies to improve schools. For more information about the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund you may contact your State Education Agency directly, or contact the U.S. Department of Education at: (202)-401 -0039. You may also call 1 -800-USA-LEARN, or go to the U.S. Department of Education Home Page at:<www.ed.gov/Technology> to receive additional information about U.S. Department of Education technology initiatives. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants complement the work of the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund by developing and refining new applications of technology that make significant contributions to school improvement. This year, states and local school systems will invest more than $4 billion in new technologies for schools. But, these investments will be worthless unless teachers and students know how to use these tools effectively to improve education. As 18development and demonstration testbeds, Technology Innovation Challenge Grants generate new learning applications and proven practices that may be successfully adapted in schools and communities across the nation. Challenge Grants buttress local investments in computers and telecommunications by helping educators ensure that new technologies pay off in improved education for the 21st Century. For example, through a technology learning collaborative in a Midwestern city hundreds of teachers and students are engaging in computer based learning activities to elevate the content and rigor of instruction in mathematics and sciences. In model classrooms that are being duplicated throughout the school system, teachers working with student teams are learning to use classroom-based workstations with multimedia capability, video capacity, and full Internet service. Strong home-school connections, and active partnerships with community centers and business firms support students who become engaged in mathematical problem solving and scientific inquiry grounded in real-life settings. The consortium has 16 active members, including a major computer company, an architectural firm, an educational research laboratory, four institutions of higher education, the local cable provider, the State Board of Education, several community organizations, and a commercial scientific research company. These consortium members are joining forces with the schools to marshal the expertise and resources needed to transform classrooms into information age learning centers. The consortium is amplilying the impact of the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants by generating matching commitments that exceed the value of federal funds awarded through the grant. An urban school system on the Great Plains is connecting its classrooms to major museums across the country to develop networked learning content that integrates the arts with core subjects including history, mathematics, science, reading and writing. Building on a strong professional development plan, which includes training by industry experts, teachers are creating engaging Internet based learning activities in the arts and other core disciplines to help students meet challenging academic standards. The program has stimulated cross-state partnerships with rural school districts that will be replicated throughout the country. A consortium with over 20 members draws on the resources of nationally recognized museums, the State Education Department, state and national arts associations, multimedia companies, colleges, and as many as 100 schools serving urban and rural youth across the state. A Technology Innovation Challenge Grant to five rural school districts in a southern state is making significant contributions to state-wide educational practice and policy. Built on the State's Goals 2(XX) effort, this systemic school reform strategy is linking low-income rural communities across the state to new learning resources that meet high standards for student achievement in core subjects. To increase low income student access to educational technology the initiative is providing educational opportunities to students and parents at more accessible times in schools and community centers that maximize building use and the technology infrastructure in under-served communities. Challenge Grant school leaders collaborated with State education leaders to draft the State Plan for Educational Technology, which was quickly adopted by the State Board of Regents. The Governor has drafted legislation to provide additional statewide funds for technology infrastructure under this plan. A Governor's Commission then joined forces with the State Department of Education and the Challenge Grant leaders to convene state implementation meetings attended by all 66 school districts and over 600 educator and business partners in the State. These stories are being replicated in dozens of communities every day. A total of 43 Challenge Grants were funded during 1995 and 1996. These grantees will eventually work with consortium partners in approximately 360 other school districts across 26 states. It is estimated that 200 business partners are participating in these consortia. One third of these businesses are information technology, software, or telecommunication firms who are joining forces with educators to develop user- friendly, low maintenance, educational applications of technology that are cost effective and easy to scale up for widespread use. A total of 90 colleges and universities are members of these consortia along with dozens of museums, libraries, research institutes, and others that are bringing new learning opportunities to our teachers and students. Over the five year life of the awards these consortium members are projected to make total matching commitments that will exceed the value of federal Challenge Grant funds by well over three-to-one. As catalysts for school improvement. Challenge Grants are supporting a creative synthesis of ideas generated by software developers, cognitive researchers, telecommunication firms, hardware manufacturers and others who are working with teachers and students to create new learning communities for improved learning. 19Technology Innovation Challenge Grants Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Education Washington, D.C. 20208-5544 Phone: 202-208-3882 Fax: 202-208-4042 E-mail: ITO_STAFFl@ed.gov Home Page: http://www.ed.gov/Technology The cover collage of World Wide Web Home Page logos was composed by Jonathan Ruhe of the Challenge Grant Staff. These logos represent 16 of the 43 Challenge Grant projects funded to date.I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: EDC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE
EDC-R X Netw ork Appropriate Lie RegwlatioBs latroduction Appropriate Cm of Computer Networki I. Purpose The Little Rock School Dtstncl provides employees and students with access to the Districts computer network, which includes access to the Internet. This policy has been developed to meet the responsibility of the Little Rock School District Hoard of Directors for securing its network and to prevent unauthorized user access and abuse. This responsibility necessitates informing users of their privileges and responsibilities as well as the consequences of misuse To establish regulations for the appropriate use of the District computer network by employees and students. II. Defiuitions E-maii: networks. The process by which messages are sent electronically across computer Network Use by Employees Flaming: Sending an e-mail message that is abtuive or that offends. .Access to the Little Rock School District computer network is provided to employees for the purpose of conducting school business Employees have the responsibility of using the network appropriately Inappropriate use of the Districts computer network may result in cancellation of network privilege as well as subject the employee to normal district progressive disciplinary sanctions Network Use by Students .Access to the Linle Rock School District computer network is provided for the purpose of enhancing the Distnct's instructional program Students have the responsibility to use the network appropriately or have network privileges revoked. Student use of the system will be governed by the Student Handbook Access to the Internet is one component of the network mailable to students. The Inlemci is an unregulated communication cm ironment. and resources can be accessed which may not be appropriate for students. Internet acces.s will be pnn ided to students only under supervision of appropriate Distnct personnel Parental permission is required in order for students to access the Internet through the District system Internet: A network of computer networks. Networks in the Internet are connected so that they can communicate with each other regardless of their manufacture. Spamming
Sending an annoying or unnecessary message to a large number of people. Vims: A computer program that uses various techniques to duplicate itself and travel between computers. Viruses can cause serious damage to computers such as erasing important data or crashing a system. III. Regulations (General 1. Computer systems and networks are provided for conducting school business and for the educational benefit of students. They are not intended for private or personal use. Adopted: U7.24 97 2. Users of the network arc responsible for follow ing local, state, federal and international laws. This includes copyright laws. 3. Users are responsible for the use of their own account, including security and proper use. Users arc not to allow others to use their password.atCOM: EDC-R laps EPS CODE: EDC-R Page 3 4. Ukts arc responsible for respecting the policies of other networks which they access and adhering to those policies. 14. Before a student is allowed to access the Internet a Student Account Agreement must be signed by both student and parent. 5. Users may not deliberately damage or disrupt a network or computer Syslem components such as hardware, software, properly or facilities shall not be destroyed, modified, or abused. Examples of activities that prohibiied are altering security codes or passwords and introducing computer wum. are 15. E-mail accounts will be issued to District employees and secondary students. Elementary students will not be issued individual e-mail accounts but may be provided access to e-mail through a classroom account. 6. No network or computer system will be used to intimidate or harass. 16. people. Users will not post personal contact information about themselves or other 7. Users will not use the network for financial advertise, promote or endorse products or personal services. or commercial gain or to 17. All users should obserse network etiquette. Users are expected to be polite and use appropriate language. Using vulgar or profane language is not appropriate. Engaging in flaming or spamming is not appropriate. t. The District will not be responsible for financial obligations or legal iafractions arising from unauthorized use of the system. 18. Use of the system to access, store, or distribute obscene, pornographic or inappropriately suggestive material is prohibited. 9. Network resources, information and electronic mail are not guaranteed to --------------M.W l,Wt ^UOiOIllCCU I De pnvaae Routine maintenance and monitoring of the system mav lead to the rtaa r --- __ ... * 19. Students are to report any inappropriate material they access to a teacher or dbeovery that a violation of a law or regulation has occurred. If there is reasonable suspicion that a law or regulation has been v iolated. an investiaation will be conducted IS other staff person. Students are not to share inaf^ropriate materials or their sources with other students. Supervision of the Computer .Network Hardware 20. Coordination of the District computer network is under the supervision of 10 Only authorized individuals wall install, service or maintain District- owned hardware the Superintendent or designee. At the building level the principal or designee- will be responsible for coordination of activities relating to the network. Sadbvare 21. The building-level coordinator will establish a system that ensures that ail 11. Only wbuare which is authorized by the District may be installed on camputer hardware employees and students receive instruction in District policies that address computer systems and networks. he coordinator will also establish a process for supervision of students using the sv ..!cni and will maintain user agreements. 12. Only authorized individuals will install software on District equipment. Penalties for Non-Permitted .Activities Any user who violates thus policy and accompanying regulations is subject to 1OS.S of network privilege as well as other District disciplinary actions. 13. primary purpose of providing Internet acces.s to employ ees is for caaducliag official busincs.s The purpose of providing Internet access to MdoM ri Car educational benefit. Browsing the Internet for cntertainmeiil (Hapoaes is not permitted access to t ILR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Fax:1-501-574-6018 May 15 '99 14:02 P. 01/02 THE CHAMBER V\heTe Business Osmeti Together GRL^lTERETTLEROCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE May 13, 1999 FAX MEMO TO: FROM: Skip Marsh-all Joe Swaty, APR SUBJECT: Meeting Notice Dr
For Your Input Skip, attached is a draft of the notice for the super joint meeting youre putting togeer for May 27***. Please review it and call me with any changes, and weTl get it out to both committees. NOTE
Thanks also for attending the membership drive kick-off breakfast... and everythingi else you do!!!! attachment LTn,: ROCK, XORII LITTuE ROCK ANC CENTRA', ARKANSAS S. SPRING H., STE. 200, 'lITT-E ROCK, AR 72201JWS
S >74-4371 FAX {
0!^ 374-3016 WEBSITE
?:f
.'
uTvu-.ijraerockfharii>cr.fOJ3 JI LR chamber of commerce Fax:1-501-374-6018 THE CHAMBER where business Comes togeixer GREATER JTTL-RXK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE May 13 99 14:03 P. 02/02 'i' Special Joint Meeting NEW TECH/COM & EDUCATION COMMITTEES May 13,1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: New Technology & Communications Committee Members Education/Partners In Education Committee Members Brian Foster, Chairman of New Technology &. Communications Jesse Mason, Chairman of Education and Community Affairs Joint May Committee Meeting Special Focus: "The Future of Technology in the Little Rock Public Schools WIIFM?" Thursday, May 27 / 12Noon Chamber Board Room A special joint meeting is planned for the Chambers New Technology & Communications Committee and the Chambers Education & Partners In Education Committee. To be held Thursday, May 27* at 12 noon in the Chamber Board Room, the meeting will feature a unique presentation by Little Rock School District Superintendent Les Camine, the District's Director of instructional Technology Lucy Neal and Spinnaker Business Services Executive Vice President Skip Marshall. The presentation is entitled The Future of Technology in the Little Rock Public Schools WIIFM? The WIIFM stands for What's In It For Me?" and refers to the far-reaching impact that technology training in our public schools will have on our entire community and local economy. The challenges of teaching young people technology skills and providing access to technology in the classroom are topics that should interest members of both Chamber committees. Please make plans now to attend this informative joint meeting on Thursday, May ZT*, beginning with lunch at 12 noon. Lunch will be provided at a cost of $7 for those who RSVP in advance by calling Sandy Bradley at 374-4871 (or e-mail us at rsvp@.littlerockchsmber.com). SESViNC UTT,'- RCCK, S'ORTO LITTLE RCQ, AND CENTRAL AJiLViSAS 101 S. SWING ST.. STS. iX. LITTLE JCCX, .SR 7220t-2-(56 (501) 374-4871 EaX (301 37+8018 E-RIAIL choric^iLicKkriiorlT'.airi * 'XTEEITE
RECEIVED APR 2 I I o GFiCE Cr DESEGREGATION yO?i!TORifJG .7 rCAMFAlQH a0ft0:.7_ dBringing ttieliilure toourchllcbnn The Little Rock School District Board of Education invites you to join them as they unveil a proposed technology initiative aimed at improving education for the students of the Little Rock School District. Please join the Board of Education f UALR Chancellor Charles Hathaway, and business and technology leaders, as they introduce the Little Rock School Districts innovative technology strategy for the new millennium. Tuesday, April 25,2000,1:30 p.m. Rockefeller Elementary School 700 East 17* Street, Little Rock For more information, please contact the Yes for Kids campaign at 975-2201.From the desk of. , . Lesle V. Caknine Date: August 24, 2000 To
Re: Members of the School Board Technology Work Group and Technology Consultants The first meeting of the Technology Work Group has been called for September 12, 2000. As you know, we are required to update the District Plan and submit an updated version to the State Department of Education.''The consultants will also provide consultative services to the campuses based on individual building plans. We hope to have a draft copy ready for the Board's review in December. We also have negotiated the contracts for the consultants and the scope of work is outlined in the attached memorandum. The contract with ATS & R is much like engineering contracts
they will not only look at individual buildings but will assist in making the wide area network functional as we renovate and add to the existing system. They will be working with us to integrate multiple technology systems into a seamless network. Multiple systems mean the telephone, security, energy, fire alarms, etc. EDS will concentrate on the management and instructional side of the equation. We have only just begun to realize the time and efficiency savings that could be generated by the use of technology. Training will also enhance effectiveness, and that may be the most powerful aspect of having enhanced technology resources. We have provided you with information at this time for your review and consideration. I anticipate asking for your approv^ at the agenda meeting September 14. As you may know, we went through a very comprehensive on process of consultant selection and the administration is convinced that by utilizing the services of these two companies we will not only have an excellent plan, but we will have saved significant resource dollars. Darral Paradis, Don Stewart, or Lucy Neal will be glad to answer your questions regarding any aspect of the contracts.114 'K' Tl Memorandum co. Date
August 24, 2000 To: From: Through Re: Little Rock School District Board of Directors Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement & Materials Management Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Technology Consultant Recommendation Pursuant to the Boards June 22"^ approval that allowed for negotiations with EDS and ATS&R as the Districts Technology Consultants
the District formed a committee to begin contract discussions with' the two companies. The committee consisted of Don Stewart, Darral Paradis, Lucy Neal, Gail Hester, John Ruffins, Doug Eaton, Sandy Becker and Kevin Crawford. The committee has met with EDS and ATS&R several times since June 22"'* and has determined the following Scopes of Work and Contract amounts: ' Scope of Work: The District intends to reconvene the community work group in order to update the Districts overall technology plan. Both EDS and ATS&R will consult with the work group in this effort as indicated in the attached diagram. The technology plan will be the central focus of all work to be performed by the consultants. Key work, components of the plan have been identified on the diagram and assigned to the consultants. These assignments and their associated s cop e of work are summarized b elow
EDS 1. 2. Software: Advise the District on software applications suitable for instructional applications that can be delivered through the internet, distance learning, LAN (local area network), intranet and any other systems. Hardware: Provide recommendations on hardware needed to accomplish technology goals. Technical Support: Recommend methods of providing ongoing technical 4. 5. support for the plan. 6. Training: Advise the District of a plan for technology training of all staff Implementation Plan: Assist the District in writing an implementation plan that aligns to the technology plan, the technical support plan and the training plan. Other: Conduct research in order to identify alternative funding resources. I .. 0.ATS&R 1. Physical Infrastructure: Review building (data cabling, voice cabling, video cabling, Gommunications bonding /grounding systems) and electrical 2, infrastructure and provide technical specifications, budgets and implementation schedules in order to support the Districts technology plan. WAN (wide area network): Establish WAN requirements and capacities for 3. interconnecting District facilities for voice, data, video, fire alarm, security and energy management systems. fiitemet Services: Review existing state internet provider services and evaluate alternatives. Contract Amounts: Lump sum fixed fee amounts were negotiated with each company to include all necessary expenses, company are as follows: The amounts for each EDS: EDS contract amount is $209,848 composed of 2331 man hours of which 949 will be on-site hours. ATS&R: AST&R contract amount is $250,000 composed of 1996 man hours of which 1548 will be on-site hours. The attached analysis provides these amounts as a percentage of total' expected expenditures the District will be maldng over the next five years for technology and facility projects respectively. To provide an example for relative comparison of these percentages, the District will usually spend between 6 and 7% of a general construction budget for an architect. The percentage can be as high as 10% for an engineer. We believe that it is essential to properly plan for the Districts infusion of technology. We do not have in-house expertise or manpower to properly review, plan and implement courses of action available. These consultants provide the District with these resources. Your approval is requested for the scope of work and contract amounts as presented. 2Technology Consultant Cost Analysis Technology Projects Dedicated Millage Technology Projects______ Proposed Technology Bond Projects - Funded Total Technology Projects Technology Consultant Fee - EDS Consultant Fee as a Total of Technology Projects Facilities Projects Dedicated Millage Facilities Projects___________________ Proposed Facilities Bond Projects - Funded____________ Energy Efficient Lighting - alternative funding___________ Total Facilities Projects Technology Consultant Fee - ATSR Consultant Fee as a Total of Facilities Projects $4,445,000 $10,897,125 $15,342,125 $210,000 1.37% $23,068,486 $108,518,865 $6,259,403 $137,846,754 $250,000 0.18%I District Priorities i. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan I -n~i i II. Technology in. Campus Leadership IV. Financial Plans 'S 'U B 1. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan A. Policies - First Comprehensive Revision since 1983 B. Middle School C. Marketing and Communication D. Nfeighborhood Schools 1 i I i I ! -i' isliiis E 1 I I I II. Technology I I A, WAN- Communication I B. Technology Labs C. Training i B - III. Campus Leadership A. Qjality Indicators------ B. Participatory Decision-Makii^ ' C. Collective Accountability [Academic Progress] V 44 LX B IV. Financial Plans A. MGT B. Campus and District Needs- C Transpoitation D. Security ------------------- E. Technology 1Question 1. Where have we been? n. Where are we now? in. Where do we need to go? Academic Progress I. Improved Teaching and T .earning A. Instructional Work Plan B. Academic Indicators 1 n. Safe Schools * in. Graduation Rate/Dropout Rate IV. Campus Leadership/Accountability B Instructional Work Plan 1. Curriculum Standards and Grade and Core Course Benchmarks 2. Development/Early Implementation of Prek-3 Literacy Plan 3. ISBF Project In^lementation 4. Curriculum Catalog and Handbook 5. Aligned LRSD Programs With Smart Start Initiative 3Instructional Work Plan 6. Professional Development for Middle School Implementation 7. Arkansas Scholars Prograi 8. SEDL Partnership to Enhance Parent Involvement Programs 9. Quarterly Criterion-referenced Tests i E 117 (J J. Academic Indicators I. SAT-9 Growth Scores n. Core Indicators /NSF m. National Merit Scholars IV. Scholarships V. Activity Participation VI. Parent and Community Involvement E Academic Indicators Comparison of Scaled Reading Score* 4 I i Academic Indicators Comparison of Scaled Math Scores Stantord t AehtcvMnoflt Test. Fall iMa _______ LRSD and NtflonaJ Norm_______ s 10 llB&Q. ______ GfOdOLWl L_BN<Nonn E 14% Academic Indicators Ceralndioaters/NSF PoreantefChanga Samaitar 1998 2nd Samastar 1999 Suoeassful Shidants 13% 11% 1 Academic Indicators National Merit National Achievement Semifinalists Finalists 1998-99 7 I 1997-98 24 13 6 B 5 Academic Indicators Scholarships Accepted 1998-99 $7,002,776 1997-98 $6,248,188 Academic Indicators Athletic Participation Junior High High School Total 1998-99 2678 1793 4471 1997-98 2050 1447 3497 28% Increase B Academic Indicators 1998-99 1997-98 Volunteer Hours Partners in Education 237,596 204 187,580 186 6I. Safe Schools Re-Establishing Behavioral Standards n. ALES in. Results E 1 2. 3. ResiJts Only one expulsion in 1998-99 (109 in 1997-98) 97.6% did not have a reportable discipline sanction 22.6% reduction in reportable sanctions m Dropout Rate I. Programs II. Accelerated Learning Center in. Results E 7Results Drop Out Rate 1 MO v't 1998-99 785 (AXfId, J 1997-98 926 4X tj 15% decrease IE Campus Leadership and Accountability I. Standards n. Quality Training ni. Accountability IV. Involvement E Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities 1. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan A. Review and revision of administrative regulations B. Refinement/updating of compliance plan E 8 Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities II. Technology A. B. C. D, Staff training Secondary labs support/utilization Secondary direct grade entry/ grade book Instructional/assessment software E Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities III. Campus Leadership A. Accountability and incentive system B. Training and technical assistance C. Cluster coordinating committee D. Revised principals evaluation system E Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities rv. Instruction A. B. Implementation of K-12 curriculum standards/benchmarks Adopt/implement an instructional c. D. framework New ESL programs/services Delivery of professional development El 9Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities IV. Instruction E. New student assessment plan F. New program evaluation plan G. Enhancement of parent involvement programs G Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities V. Cjperations A. Implementation of MGT recommendations action plan B. Millage campaign G Construction, maintenance and housekeeping review Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities V. Curations D. MitchellXGarland and facility use planning E, Prepare for opening of new Stephens School B 10Issues MJ 1 i I. Making Quality Universal n. Safe Schools/Leaming Climate HI. Dropout/Graduation Rates rV. Campus Leadership/Accountability B 11 CHALLENGE GRANTS FOR TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION OMB No. 1810-0569 Form Exp.: 8/96 Public fBporiino burden tor this collaciion al intormtion is gslimaled lo averag, 24 hours per response, incluaina Iha lima lot nd maintainm/f thb Hata anad oaeavenlAaiaeae ... .1 .u.. .1 - - .U_ __ . . . ... * . ......-'w..w..wia^wa-T>iwwapoiidpu nd maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send reviewing instructions, sesrching existing data sources, gathering comments regarding the burden eny other aspect of this collection of ......wwerwai w> tiiuiiiiaiiuii. esaiiw vuiiiiiisnis rsgaroing me ouroen estimate or anv t 1. oili'm 'J-- II' Education. Inlormation Managem.nt .nd Compliance Division .ne Office of Manaoement and Budoat. Paoarwork Reduction Prmert ii8irk.neeQi. n noeno ~ ~ ------------a---------------------- ... ezspoi iinaiii ui cuuveUUII. lUIOfinBlIOn utfice Management Budget. Paperwork Project 11810-0569)
Washington. D.C. 20503. Washington. D.C. 20202-4S51
and to This application should be sent to: No. 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room 3633, ROB 3 Washington, D.C. 20202-4725__________________ 3. Legal Applicant (local educational agency) Legal Applicant Name Little ROCk SchOOl District 1. Application No. 2. Employer Identification No. 71-6014717 4. Project Director Name and Title Address (Complete) 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Address (Complete) Congressional District(s) 2 Telephone: 501 Not Yet Selected Program Contact: Marvin Schwartz Grants Writer Little Rock School District 810 West Markham, LR, AR 72201 324-2014 Fax
501 Area Code 5. Federal Funds Requested: 324-2032 Number 6. Corrsortium Members (other than Legal Applicant Fill in number of each. 1st Year $1.115.009 2nd Year $939.995 3rd Year $1.004.865 4th Year $1,021.295 Sth Year $1,083,705 TOTAL $5.164,869 Other LEA SEA 1 Library 1 Museum 2 Institution of higher ed. __Other non-profit 1 For-profit firm 5 Other r. Duration of Project Starting Date
Ending Date: JO/15/96 1Q/14/Q1 8. Student Population Directly Benefiting from the Project Total Number of Months: 60 9. Application Title 25,000 ___________________Little Rock School District Technology in Education Program 10. Brief Abstract of Application
(Do not leave this blank) The LRSD Technology in Education Program will address the educational goal of increasing siud program will increase technological capacity in the public schools and the of professional development and technological training for educators. 2) incieasea access to technol. spools and conunumty sites, and 3) the involvement of students and families in innovative technology-based educational w?rk Ss increased through new computer installations at schools and ^bUc access computer work s tes city libraries, conunumty centers, housing projects, a museum, and a local university The general theme for the applications of science in the areas of energy, economics, life sciences and student achievement in the areas of community. Project goals 2) increased access to technology at 11. Certification By Authorizing Official The applicant certifies to the best of his/her knowledge and belief that the data in this application are true and correct and that the filing of the application has been duly authorized by the governing body of the applicant. N: Henry P. Ui 11 trains linnatiirp ' signature Superintendent Title June 20. 1996 Date 501/324-2000 Telephone TITLE PAGE FORMLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION PROGRAM Table of Contents ABSTRACT. ,2 NARRATIVE .3 1. PROGRAM VISION .3 2. STUDENT NEEDS .4 3. PROGRAM ACTIVITY .5 A. Consortium Members....... B. Staff Development.......... C. Connectivity.................... D. Curriculum Development E. Program Management.... F. Evaluation........................ ..6 ..1 ..8 10 14 15 4. PROGRAM IMPACT 16 5. BENEFITS TO STUDENTS 17 6. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 18 7. NEW LEARNING COMMUNITIES 20 LIST OF CONSORTIUM MEMBERS ,22 PROJECT PERSONNEL 24 Job Descriptions............................. Horizon Research, Inc. Personnel 24 28 BUDGET 30 LIST OF APPLICATION AUTHORS 53 ATTACHMENTS .54 Program Organization Chart.............................. Horizon Research, Inc. Corporate Capabilities Letters of Support................................................ .55 56 ,61 1Abstract The LRSD Technology in Education Program will address the educational goal of increasing student achievement in the areas of math and science. In its five-year initial phase, the program will increase technological capacity in the public schools and the community by coordinating a comprehensive public-private partnership. The partnership will focus on three broad components to achieve the project goal. These include: 1) new levels of professional development and technological training for educators, 2) increased access to technology at schools and community sites, and 3) the involvement of students and families in innovative technology-based educational activities. Program partners with expertise in each component area will assist in development and implementation. Professional development will be guided by input from teacher training departments of area universities and the state Departments of Education and Higher Education. Professional development in utilization of new technology will be coordinated with telecommunication organizations and the state public school computer network. Access to technology will be increased through new computer installations at schools and computer work sites at city libraries, community centers, housing projects, a museum, and a local university. Computer programs and educational activities will be developed in coordination with a local museum, library, medical center, a federal research center, and university science departments. To maintain a local sphere of interest for students, the general theme for the technology-based curriculum will focus on Arkansas applications of science in the areas of energy, economics, life sciences and the environment. The program will impact four groups of people: 1) Students will benefit by accessing existing computer network programs and new project-designed curriculum. Improved student skills in technology will increase achievement in all school areas
2) Teacher benefits from technology training include more effective classroom teaching and continued exploration of computer networks for interaction with other professionals
3) Parents will receive training to support student success in schoolbased technology. Programs in computer basics and parent involvement will focus on cooperative technology projects with students
4) The community will have access to multiple sites where trained staff and computer work stations will be available. Parents will use these sites to work with their children on school projects or to pursue adult learning and exploration via computer networks. The LRSD Technology in Education Program will be established in eight (8) elementary schools in Year 1, then expand over the five-year program to reach approximately 24,900 students at all District elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. Teachers and principals will engage in staff development as their schools initiate involvement in the program. LRSD matching support to the program will feature school-based equipment purchases through federal Title I funds and technical staff. Program staff will be LRSD employees, though program administration will be directed by a full consortium advisory committee. Program evaluation will be conducted by an external organization. 2Narrative 1. Program Vision The LRSD Technology in Education Program will address the educational goal of increasing student achievement in the areas of math and science. This goal is aligned with National Goals 2000 and Arkansas Educational Goals (Act 236 of 1991) which focus on raising mathematics and science achievements to a level where students are first in the world. This ambitious undertaking will be achieved through the implementation of a comprehensive technology plan that integrates student, educator, and community components. Increased attainment in math and science was selected because competencies in those areas, such as problem solving and critical thinking skills, are vital to the overall educational development of students. Verbal and reading skills are incorporated into those areas, adding to the students total educational achievement. Accordingly, the LRSD Technology in Education Program is directly aligned with state and national standards for math/science education. The Statewide Systemic Initiative, which incorporates professional development activities known as the Arkansas Crusades, serves as the foundation of the LRSD program. The program mission for Little Rock public schools is create successful learning environments for every student, promote professional growth for teachers involving math/science content and instructional strategies, and provide access to adequate instructional materials including math/science equipment and technology in all math/science classrooms. The outcome of this activity brings students into a new realm of information and raises their capacity to seek out and apply their knowledge in innovative educational projects. The LRSD program will create a vision of: 1. math/science literacy for all in an evolving technological society 2. math/science as an active, constructive, cooperative process 3. math/science involving experimentation, investigation, analysis, inquiry and problem solving 4. math/science curriculum that includes interdisciplinary content connection and real-world application 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Further, program activity will achieve the following goals: Foster excitement in students for learning math/science and create a life-long interest in science Develop and implement an innovative, integrated curriculum based on national and state standards in math/science Offer professional development to all teachers in math/science content, learning theory, effective teaching strategies, critical thinking skills, and use of appropriate technologies, manipulatives, and investigative materials Equip every classroom so all students have appropriate tools and experience to develop math/sciendfic literacy Direct math/science education toward proficiency and understanding and demonstrate student progress toward specific outcomes through authentic assessment Increase the number of students enrolled in science courses and increase the number of students taking math and science every year in high school Encourage business and higher education partnerships to benefit students as future employees 39. Ensure traditionally underrepresented underserved students benefit from teaching which implement technology and iimovative teaching strategies 10. Involve parents, administrators, and the community to create positive perceptions and attitudes about math/science 11. Encourage the teaching of math/science as a inquiry employing experimentation and mathematical analysis 2. Student Needs The LRSD operates 51 school buildings, including elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. K-12 eru-ollment is 24,922 for the 1995-96 school year. Black students comprise 66.4% and white students 33.6% of the total student body. Census data on Little Rock, however, reveals a 64.7% white population and 34% black population. These figures illustrate the challenge faced by the LRSD to establish itself as the educational institution of choice for all citizens. Scores on the fall 1995 SAT8 exam, illustrated below, identify a core problem for the District in racial disparity in test scores and academic achievement. While overall averages project a district-wide student performance level at or near the national norm (50th percentile), a far more revealing insight is gained when scores are presented by race. Across the District, black students are scoring in the niid-30th percentile while their white peers are scoring in the low-70th percentile. National Percentile Rankings Stanford 8 Achievement Test - Fall 1995 Grades 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 % 9 10 11 Average Total Reading Total Math Language/Englis Science Social Science 43 39 44 49 46 48 34 42 41 45 43.1 42 51 58 55 69 54 43 35 39 41 48.7 49 48 53 58 59 56 45 49 50 46 51.3 40 52 48 54 60 53 42 45 44 45 48.3 51 59 60 49 49 47 52 44 51.38 Basic B 33 .29 40 40 40 40 33 30 34 34 35.3 Battery W 69 68 73 77 ? 76 75 68 66 71 71 71.4 Complete Battery B 27 28 38 40 41 38 32 30 ^34^ -->32.^.:^ 34 W 68 69 73 79 79 76 69 68 74 4 n' 11.1 Adding to the problem of low academic achievement among minorities is an unbalanced racial enrollment at most LRSD schools. Because school assigrunent is based on attendance zones, predominantly minority neighborhoods are served by schools with high minority student enrollment. Particularly in inner city neighborhoods, black student population averages 80 percent and higher. Among the eight schools identified for Year 1 program activity, black student population is as follows: Bale - 70%, Brady - 63.45%, Cloverdale - 84.77%, RightseU - 95.89%, Rockefeller - 63.79% Watson - 79.50% Western HiUs - 66.03% Wilson-79.17% A large number of LRSD students come from low income households, as reflected in a 49.5% eligibility for the free and reduced lunch program and 18.5.% participation in Title I programs. Black students comprise a disproportionately high percentage of these low income groups. A large section of downtown Little Rock is included within the Pulaski County 4Empowerment Community, the federal economic development program for urban areas with high poverty rates. Data from the Pulaski County EC reveals that 14.6% of Little Rock and 32% of the EC live below poverty levels. Median income for Little Rock is $26,889 compared to $14,241 for the EC. A low income household is not a barrier to education in itself, but strong student performance is significantly more difficult to achieve when a students home life is economically restricted. A high percentage low income LRSD students reside in public housing. They are raised by single females with high dependency on social services. Teen pregnancy, youth crime and violence, and low rates of adult literacy and high school completion are the norm in their environment. In such homes, parents are generally ill prepared to assist their childrens school work. Because of their own lack of education, parents often are uncomfortable dealing with schools and teachers. As a result, parent involvement at school and at home is very low. Basic reading material in the home is a rare commodity. Home-based technology is virtually nonexistent. The impact of these negative socio-economic factors are much like those experienced by students with physical disabilities or for whom English is a second language. Numerous barriers to learning are the result. Yet the educational needs of inner city minority students are not significantly different than those of their more affluent peers. They are simply more extreme. Like all children, they need: Teachers who understand the capacity of technology to reach and motivate students with distinct barriers to learning
who are well informed of new learning initiatives and model programs, and who are well prepared to implement technologybased educational initiatives. Classrooms equipped with access to appropriate instructional technology. Curriculum that integrates technology into core learning strategies: motivates students to explore a new realm of educational experiences
and links educational experiences to their immediate community and the world. Community based resources, particularly adult mentors and demonstration sites, that encourage student exploration and expanded learning. A community that demonstrates its support of student achievement through strong parent involvement in schools
and that coordinates public affairs and public services to establish comprehensive programs for all citizens. The needs of LRSD students reflect the needs of the community as a whole. The need exists for a strategic process that utilizes contemporary technology and human resources to fulfill long term individual and social potential. The LRSD Technology in Education Program offers that opportunity. 3. Program Activity Activity to accomplish program goals and achieve the program vision will be accomplished through three broad components: 1) staff development, 2) connectivity, and 3) curriculum development. This section will identify those specific activities and consortium member responsibilities within the overall program strategy, identifying in broad terms what each partner will do and how they will do it. More specific description of the impact and results of those activities is included in later sections. Finally, this section will conclude with an overview of the program management and the roles of the advisory committee, staff, and evaluation component. 5LRSD Technology in Education Program will impact 387 educators at all 49 District schools according to the yearly schedule provided below. Total educators Year 1 2 3 4 5 Totals Total schools in program 8 17 26 35 49 49 # schools added each year 8 9 9 9 14 49 (teachers + principals) 96 70 70 70 81 387 Elementary schools added each year # schools 8 6 6 6 10 36 # teachers 88 54 54 54 56 306 Secondary schools added each year # schools # teachers 3 3 3 4 13 7 7 7 11 32 A. Consortium Members Arkansas Department of Education (DoE): State agency responsible for certifying teachers and curriculum Arkansas Department of Higher Education (DoHE): State agency implementing the NSF Systemic Initiatives (Math/Science Crusades) Arkansas
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.