Empowering Learning

A Blueprint for
California Education Technology
2014–2017

A Report to State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson by his Education Technology Initiative
April 2014
Empowering Learning: California Education Technology Blueprint, 2014–2017, is the product of the
Superintendent’s Initiatives Office of the California Department of Education under the
direction of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson and in collaboration
with the California Department of Education’s Educational Data Management Division.
 Table of ConTenTs
A MessAge FroM the stAte superintendent oF public instruction ................ 1
executive suMMAry And the cAliForniA context ............................................. 3
educAtion technology tAsk Force................................................................... 8
blueprint recoMMendAtions ........................................................................... 10
Learning...................................................................................................................14
Teaching...................................................................................................................15
Assessment..............................................................................................................17
Infrastructure..........................................................................................................18
Appendix A: blueprint developMent process ................................................. 21
Appendix b: blueprint conceptuAl FrAMework .............................................. 23
bibliogrAphy ...................................................................................................... 24
educAtion technology tAsk Force MeMbers ................................................. 26
speciAl AcknowledgeMents .............................................................................. 29
This page intentially left blank.
a Message froM The sTaTe superinTendenT of publiC insTruCTion

April 2014

Dear Fellow Californians:

Fifteen years into the 21st Century, technological advancements continue to change the
way we interact with each other and with the world. Preparing our students to succeed
in the society and the economy they will find when they leave our classrooms means
preparing them to use technology effectively, safely, and productively.

Empowering Learning: California’s Education Technology Blueprint gathers the

recommendations of some of our leading experts in education and technology—and in
where and how the two may intersect. We must always remember that technology is a
means, not an end—a tool and component of achieving a world-class education for
every child in California.

Since taking office in 2011, I have visited schools all over California and seen our great
state’s diversity in all its forms. In these schools, I have seen the potential that can be
unlocked by access to the right tools. I have seen students discuss the books they are
reading in class online. I have seen desktop robots used to demonstrate engineering
concepts. And I have seen everything from virtual frog dissections to student-produced
newscasts. Most importantly, I have seen how technology can be tailored to respond to
the strengths and challenges of each student as an individual.

As first William Shakespeare and later Aldous Huxley said, it is a brave new world. It is
a world that is full of limitless potential for the young people of California, a state that
has always led the way in these areas and much more. This is what is also at the heart
of the Common Core State Standards and modern assessments that can help guide
teaching and learning in the classroom.

Those of us who have made education our life’s work know that we must ensure
students are given the tools and opportunities they need to succeed, both in school and
out. Education technology—if pursued thoughtfully—is both one such tool and one such
opportunity.

Sincerely,

Tom Torlakson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Page 1
 This page intentially left blank.

Page 2
exeCuTive suMMary and The California ConTexT

California’s public education system is undergoing a series

of transformations toward the goal of ensuring every child
has access to a world-class education.

Today, part of the strategy toward reaching this goal is

access to technology. In 2011, a key United Nations report
declared broadband access as a basic human right for all the
world’s citizens when United Nations Special Rapporteur
Frank LaRue emphasized that “the Internet has become a 1
United Nations General Assem­
key means by which individuals can exercise their right to bly Human Rights Council. Report
freedom and expression.”1 of the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the
right to freedom of opinion and
This Blueprint for California Education Technology is a call to expression, Frank La Rue, p. 7.
action for educators, community leaders, and businesses to Accessed on March 22, 2014, from
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/
work together to find solutions to the challenges we face. bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17ses­
sion/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf
Since its founding, California has been the state defined by
dreams and innovation. For more than a century, people
throughout the nation and the world have traveled to Cali-
fornia in search of a better life. This aspiration is a founda-
tion of our state’s culture, one helping to propel California
into the world’s eighth largest economy.

Given our history, no one should be surprised that the mod-

ern technology industry calls California home and continues
to thrive here.
2
TechAmerica Foundation, Cyber­
California leads the nation in technology jobs, and the tech- states 2013. Accessed January 22,
nology industry is a vital part of the California economy. 2014, from http://www.techameri­
cafoundation.org/cyberstates
The TechAmerica Foundation’s Cyberstates 2013 report notes
that the tech industry employs nearly 8 percent of Califor-
nia’s private sector workforce and that tech workers have
an annual average wage 131 percent higher than the state’s
private sector average.2

Technology is changing nearly every aspect of our lives. We

live in a world filled with text messages, social networking,
and multimedia content delivery.

Technology innovations have changed everyday commerce

and communications. Traditional industry sectors such as
banking, music, television and film, and newspaper and
Page 3
 book publishing—to name some of the most obvious—
have been transformed by technology.

The products and services produced by our technology sec-

tor have permeated into virtually every industry and into our
everyday actions, conversations, and learning.

Education must be the next sector to embrace the future

that is being transformed by technology. As the Internation-
al Society for Technology in Education explains, “Today’s
3
International Society for Tech­
nology in Education, National educators must provide a learning environment that takes
Educational Technology Standards students beyond the walls of their classrooms and into a
Project. world of endless opportunities.”3

In fact, this transformation has already begun. This Blueprint

addresses a time period of just over three years into the
future—through 2017.

One only needs to look back over the past three years to
understand the magnitude of the pace of change technology
fosters. At the beginning of 2010, the iPad® had yet to be in-
troduced. That device, proudly branded by its manufacturer
as “designed in California,” began a monumental shift.
In recent presentations, Stanford
University Professor Linda
Darling-Hammond cites a sum­ It took more than three decades for education to embrace
mary of recent studies by Chris the personal computer era, but within three years of the
Wardlaw included in his report, arrival of the iPad®, schools embraced it and other tablets
Mathematics in Hong Kong/China:
Improving on Being 1st in PISA
(running, among others, the Google Android™ operating
to highlight some of these 21st platform, Linux® operating system, and Microsoft Win-
century skills: dows® operating system). In 2014, students in some of our
school districts—including the state’s largest—are taking
• Ability to communicate
• Adaptability to change online assessments not just on desktop computers but on
• Ability to work in teams tablets.
• Preparedness to solve
problems
• Ability to analyse and We are moving into a period where mobile learning will
conceptualise allow students to work with their teachers and parents to uti-
• Ability to reflect on and lize a cloud of knowledge and master key 21st century skills.
improve performance
• Ability to manage oneself
• Ability to create, innovate and A three-year technology window can lead to dramatic chang-
criticise es. Today, mobile users use their smart devices to access the
• Ability to engage in learning
web, check heart rate, study seismic activity, translate lan-
new things at all times
• Ability to cross specialist bor­ guages, and describe images for the visually impaired. Users
ders will have the power of entire libraries in the palm of their
hands.
Page 4
Mobile devices are being used for formative assessments, for As more of our students own
Common Core implementation evaluation, and to support and use portable devices, mobile
learning could become a more
the curriculum. By 2017, they may be essential for person- important part of the K-12 educa­
alized instruction in blended learning environments. As tional experience.
more of our students own and use portable devices, mobile
learning could become a more important part of the K–12 According to the Pew Research
Center’s Teens and Technol­
educational experience. ogy 2013 report http://www.
pewinternet.org/2013/03/13/
Teachers may have the capability to offer their students teens-and-technology-2013/:
instruction in ways that best match a child’s needs, best • 78 percent of teens now have a
learning style, and ideal pace. Teacher librarians can provide cell phone.
critical support and transmission of technical knowledge
• 37 percent of teens own smart-
and education technology teaching and learning techniques. phones.

Teacher librarians can also help implement in a mobile ed- • 74 percent of teens say they ac­
ucation context the existing model frameworks that include cess the Internet on cell phones.

technology fundamentals, including the Model Library Stan- • 23 percent of teens have a tab­
dards for California Schools4 and the California Career Technical let computer.
Education Model Curriculum Standards.5

The NMC Horizon Report > 2013 K–12 Edition6 argues that
the K–12 time-to-adoption horizon for mobile learning na-
tionally will be one year or less. This report, which covers a 4
Accessed April 2, 2014, at
range of technology adoptions, is enriched by K–12 exam- https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/
ples from California. But what are now isolated examples ss/documents/
should become commonplace. librarystandards.pdf

As the report explains, “After years of anticipation, mo- 5

Accessed April 2, 2014, at
bile learning is positioned for near-term and widespread http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/
adoption in schools. Tablets, smartphones, and mobile apps sf/ctemc­ standards.asp
have become too capable, too ubiquitous, and too useful
to ignore, and their distribution defies traditional patterns 6
Accessed February 2, 2014, at
of adoption, both by consumers, where even economical- http://www.nmc.org/publica­
ly disadvantaged families find ways to make use of mobile tions/2013-horizon-report-k12
technology, and in schools, where the tide of opinion has
dramatically shifted when it comes to mobiles in schools.”

But in California—home to Silicon Valley and the world’s

leading technology companies—too many schools have
been left out of this technology revolution. California must
not only keep up with mobile technologies. It must lead.

That is why we should be concerned over reports from the

California Emerging Technology Fund that “more than nine
Page 5
 million Californians who live in remote rural communities,
on tribal lands, in low-income neighborhoods, or who have
7
California Emerging Technology
Fund 2012–13 Annual Report.
a disability”7 do not have the benefit of high-speed connec-
Accessed February 6, 2014, at tions to the Internet.
http://www.cetfund.org/annual­
reports.
Our education leaders, including Superintendent Torlakson,
have identified the pressing need for all students to graduate
from high school with the skills required to succeed in col-
lege and careers. Given California’s size and diversity, one-
size-fits-all solutions are unlikely.

Preparing our students to succeed in college or careers

requires that they understand technology and master 21st
century skills like critical thinking and problem solving, com-
munication and collaboration, and creativity and innovation.

Stanford University Professor Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond,

the co-chair of Superintendent Torlakson’s Transition Ad-
Teacher librarians can provide visory Team, described this new mission for schools in her
critical support and transmission
of technical knowledge and edu­
book The Flat World and Education:
cation technology teaching and
learning techniques. “The new mission of schools is to prepare students to
work at jobs that do not yet exist, creating ideas and
solutions for products and problems that have not yet
been identified, using technologies that have not been
invented.”8

There is a role for everyone in this education transforma-

tion. It will require both a sense of wonder and the courage
to take on new roles as the landscape of learning trans-
forms.

We will need to make communities and parents aware of the

enhanced potentials for teaching and learning. We will need
8
The Flat World and Education, Dr. to build political will around the urgency of making it hap-
Linda Darling-Hammond, p. 2. pen.

Teachers will never be more important and administrators

never more crucial. Superintendents must lead into some-
times unfamiliar territory. We must all be inspired by exam-
ples, empowered by training, and committed to embracing
new challenges, overcoming obstacles, and envisioning great
successes.

Page 6
We must be prepared to embrace a landscape where technol-
ogy in teaching and learning becomes part of the fabric of
modeling, observation sharing, and the new and expanded
peer groups all of us can experience.

Mobile devices and wireless systems are transforming the

very definition of place-based learning environments. They
also create many new learning opportunities.

As a result of our commitment to the Common Core State

Standards and the development of the new Smarter Bal-
anced assessment system, California must take steps to
ensure that an appropriate technology network is in place to
support these education transformations.

However, there are millions of students in California who

do not have adequate access to technology in their class-
rooms or at home. According to the K–12 High Speed 2013
Annual Report, 791 California schools today have a T-1 line
(1.5 Mbps) or lower broadband access9—inadequate for the
needs of today’s students.

We must ensure that every one of California’s 6.2 million

students can take advantage of the opportunities education
technology presents. We must not allow some students to
9
K–12 High Speed 2013 Annual
fail to have the opportunity to learn basic skills required to Report. Accessed April 2, 2014, at
interact in a digital world. We need to make sure every stu- http://www.k12hsn.org/ about/
dent has access to, and the knowledge to use, the technology news/archive.php/view/ news/8260
needed to successfully participate in the Smarter Balanced (NOTE: Link no longer valid)
assesssments.

We must not allow a lack of technology—or ineffective

implementation—to become the roots of the next achieve-
ment gap.

Page 7
 eduCaTion TeChnology Task forCe

To respond to the demands for this mobile learning tran-

sition and for the need to prevent the creation of a new
achievement gap from the digital divide, State Superin-
Teachers will never be more
tendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson convened a
important and administrators
never more crucial. 48-member Education Technology Task Force.

Superintendent Torlakson charged the Task Force with

writing a memo containing recommendations to form the
foundation of a new California Education Technology
Blueprint—a Blueprint creating a roadmap to an education
system where, as he put it, “No Child is Left Off-Line.”

The Task Force and the Superintendent’s Strategic Initiatives

Office collaborated with the California Department of Edu-
cation’s Education Data Management Division and designed
a transparent, public process providing multiple opportuni-
ties for stakeholder involvement. These included web-based
discussions, in-person presentations, and a series of town
hall events across the state.

Guiding Principles for the Education Technology Task Force

Mission of the California Department of Education

California will provide a world-class education for all students, from early childhood to adulthood.
The Department of Education serves our state by innovating and collaborating with educators,
schools, parents, and community partners. Together, as a team, we prepare students to live, work,
and thrive in a highly connected world.

Vision for Education Technology in California

Education technology will be as effective and productive a tool in the school environment as it is
in the world beyond schools (p.12, A Blueprint for Great Schools).

Call to Action

The State Superintendent’s Transition Advisory Report: A Blueprint for Great Schools called out a key
recommendation for the comprehensive use of technology in California schools:

Facilitate the infusion of 1:1 computing in school, after school and in the home; provide devices,
Internet access, new digital curriculum materials, capacity for ongoing diagnostic assessment,
professional development and network support, and institute an open standard for the exchange
of educational information (p.13, A Blueprint for Great Schools).

Page 8
The Task Force met three times in person and had frequent
online conversations. They focused on what California could
do to enhance the positive impact education technology has
in four key areas:

• Learning: The group sought to ensure that all

learners will have engaging and empowering learn-
ing experiences both in and out of school to pre-
pare them to be active, creative, and ethical partici-
pants in our globally networked society.

• Teaching: The group focused on actions support-

ing and enabling teachers to make effective use and
integration of technology into all areas of instruc-
tion from pre-school, through grades K–12, and
continuing on to adult and career education.

• Assessment: The group examined how assess-

ments are key to preparing our students for a com-
petitive world and discussed how they should not
only allow a student to demonstrate their learning
of concepts, but also allow them to be creative and
personalize their learning.

• Infrastructure: The group sought to provide

specific recommendations about how California
could modernize the infrastructure across Califor-
nia’s public schools in response to Superintendent
Torlakson’s “No Child Left Off-line” vision.

The Education Technology Task Force presented their A copy of this memo is at http://
10

www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/docu­
recommendations to the Superintendent in the form of an ments/efftmemo.pdf
open, public memo in August 2012.10

The Superintendent’s staff then met with the public and

representatives of technology companies and digital content
providers to discuss the work of the Task Force and gather
their input regarding California education technology policy.

After those public meetings, the Education Technology

Task Force collected all of the information and drafted this
Blueprint for California Education Technology to offer a plan to
ensure every California student will benefit from what edu-
cation technology can offer.

Page 9
 Based on this input, this Blueprint for California Education Tech-
nology is carefully designed to support four California educa-
tion transformation initiatives:

• Implementation of the Common Core State Stan-

dards.

• Development and deployment of new assessments

as a governing state in the Smarter Balanced As-
sessment Consortium.

• Implementation of a statewide collaboration with

the Partnership for 21st Century Schools.

• Implementation of Superintendent Torlakson’s

“No Child Left Off-line” vision of one-to-one
computing for every student and educator.

blueprinT reCoMMendaTions

Technology, and how we use it, is changing rapidly. New

products become available every day. Education policy has
also changed significantly since the work of the Superinten-
dent’s Education Technology Task Force concluded.

Superintendent Torlakson has been traveling around the

state to discuss the benefits he sees from the implemention
of education technology to support student learning—in-
cluding more individualized and dynamic learning experienc-
es for each student.

Work on implementing policies based on these recommen-

11
Acceptable expenditures of dations has already begun. For example: ensuring adoption
these funds may include, but are of the Local Control Funding Formula, transitioning to a
not necessarily limited to, expen­ new vision of assessments outlined in Assembly Bill 484
ditures necessary to support the
administration of computer-based (Bonilla), leading a national E-rate modernization initiative,
assessments and provide high- and securing $1.25 billion to help our educators implement
speed, high-bandwidth Internet the transition to the Common Core State Standards, includ-
connectivity for the purpose of
the administration of comput­
ing the integration of these academic content standards
er-based assessments. through technology-based instruction for purposes of im-
proving the academic performance of pupils.11

Page 10
For educators and policy makers, keeping up with the ac-
celerating pace of technological change and policy changes
could prove a formidable challenge.

That is why we did not design this Blueprint to be a series of

specific policy implementation checklists. Instead, this Blue-
print outlines a vision to support California educators using
technology to enhance the learning experience for every
child. We must not allow a lack of tech­
nology—or ineffective implemen­
All parties should consider including processes to measure tation—to become the roots of
the next achievement gap.
how well these programs improve student learning. That
will allow us to have the ability to inform Californians about
our progress and seek the additional investment required to
ensure every student can benefit.

As we work to implement the recommendations contained

in this Blueprint, we will review existing state, regional, and
local educational technology programs, resources, and ser-
vices. We will consider adapting these existing resources to
support these recommendations as appropriate. We should
not assume we must replace programs that are already work-
ing, but instead seek to include them in a more comprehen-
sive and coherent education technology policy system.

The following recommendations contain actions for part-

ners—at all levels—in the education of California’s students.
A summary of the Blueprint’s recommendations follows.

Page 11
 Summary of the California Education Technology Blueprint’s
Recommendations

Learning

1. To ensure a technology skills gap will not become the next achievement gap,
California should work toward providing every student, teacher, and administrator
with access to at least one Internet-connected device.

2. Ensure student safety by outlining policies and best practices to prevent

cyberbullying and protect student data.

3. Enhance classroom technology integration throughout California’s K–12 and

higher education systems.

4. Provide all students age- and grade-appropriate instruction in the use of

technology, including computer science and programming.

Teaching

5. Remove barriers that restrict teacher flexibility in using technology to educate our
children.

6. Create professional development and teacher certification programs in education

technology instruction.

7. Create a ranked-data platform to allow educators, parents, and students to evaluate

online and blended learning resources.

8. Determine how to provide regional and statewide education technology support in

the new Local Control Funding Formula policy climate.

9. Build capacity for local and regional decision making regarding instructional
materials, including digital curriculum resources.

10. Lead state and multi-state efforts to define and establish education resource
standards to improve the development of low-cost, shared resources.

Page 12
 Summary of the California Education Technology Blueprint’s
Recommendations

Assessment

11. Based on the Smarter Balanced field test experience in spring 2014, further
identify technology readiness gaps in schools and advocate for funding to ensure
schools have the necessary technology and professional development support.

12. Establish professional development programs and platforms for using technology
in formative learning assessment.

13. Develop and support student recognition programs that measure 21st century
skills, demonstrate learning of standards-based concepts, and allow students to per-
sonalize their learning.

Infrastructure

14. Aggressively pursue statewide and regional partnership opportunities to enhance

broadband connectivity and access to Internet-connecting devices.

15. Ensure school districts design school facilities with technology and the Common
Core State Standards in mind.

16. Monitor and expand network bandwidth to support the move toward deployment
of one-to-one computing.

17. Pursue measures to close the digital divide among California students and
promote broadband adoption among California residents.

18. Explore the deployment of statewide cloud computing data centers.

19. The California Department of Education should help lead this transition by
creating a senior-level position for education technology.

Page 13
 California Education Technology Blueprint Recommendations Narrative

Learning

Recommendation #1:
To ensure a technology skills gap will not become the next achievement gap, Cali-
fornia should work toward providing every student, teacher, and administrator with
access to at least one Internet-connected device.

These one-to-one initiatives can enhance any time, any place learning. To ensure they do,
these devices should meet the Smarter Balanced minimum hardware specifications (a de-
scription of them is available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/ under the Technology
Components section).

In addition, if these devices are provided to students in lieu of traditional textbooks or

instructional materials, then districts will need to have systems or policies in place to ensure
compliance with California Education Code provisions relating to the sufficiency of textbooks
and instructional materials (California Education Code Section 60000, et seq.)

This transition will require the adoption of new policies and learning strategies to foster stu-
dent engagement and individualized learning using technology.

Recommendation #2:
Ensure student safety by outlining policies and best practices to prevent cyberbully-
ing and protect student data.

It is important to teach students about the ethical, legal, and safe use of online information
and resources. It is also important to help students learn about how they can protect them-
selves and their personal information in
online environments.

The California of Department of Educa-

tion (CDE) and stakeholder organizations
can disseminate samples of use and safety
policies, technology plans, insurance agree-
ments, social media guidelines, anti-piracy,
and acceptable use policies. The CDE and
stakeholder organizations can also highlight
and distribute curriculum resources, includ-
ing those found in the Model School Library
Standards for California Schools and the Califor-
nia Career Technical Education Model Curriculum
Standards.
Page 14
These resources can help students learn 21st century skills such as digital citizenship, infor-
mation literacy, and safe and legal Internet use (for example, those surrounding plagiarism
and pirating music and movies).

Recommendation #3:
Enhance classroom technology integration throughout California’s K–12 and higher
education systems.

The state should coordinate its education technology policies among all of the institutions
impacting students. While education technology will be a key part of the educational experi-
ence, it should enhance student learning and not be seen as a way to replace the in-classroom
experience. Blended learning and flipped classrooms are examples of ways to make this
possible.

Recommendation #4:
Provide all students age- and grade-appropriate instruction in the use of technology,
including computer science and programming.

Computer science can aid with the development of 21st century skills such as critical think-
ing, problem solving, analysis, and collaboration. Computer science shows students how to
create—and not only use—21st century technologies while also preparing students for ca-
reers in a variety of fields.

Teaching

Recommendation #5:
Remove barriers that restrict teacher flexibility in using technology to educate our
children.

All levels of our education system should take actions to encourage, support, and reward
teachers and administrators for their use of technology to support current and emerging
models of learning.

Districts and schools can develop and implement learning resources that exploit the flexibil-
ity and power of technology to reach all learners any time and any place. Special education
classes also offer opportunities for technology to enhance the student learning experience.

Education stakeholders can also develop model policies based on the expectation that stu-
dents will use devices to enhance their learning rather than the all-too-frequent requirement
for students to turn off their technology when they arrive on campus.

Page 15
Recommendation #6:
Create professional development and teacher certification programs in education
technology instruction.

Stakeholder organizations should take steps to develop programs that allow teachers to gain
the skills necessary to teach Common Core-aligned curriculum effectively in blended learn-
ing environments. Certification programs can be designed to give teachers continuing educa-
tion credit for upgrading their skills and to ensure teachers with demonstrated expertise can
have the option to gain credit through an alternate assessment process.

Teaching institutions should be encouraged to incorporate into their programs the use of
education technology to enhance the opportunities to engage students and use tools to
provide individualized instruction. The state should investigate ways to provide appropriate
recognition to teachers who develop skills in this area.

Recommendation #7:
Create a ranked-data platform to al-
low educators, parents, and students
to evaluate online and blended learn-
ing resources.

Develop the necessary infrastructure to

create this online learning community
for sharing educational resources across
all learning platforms and encouraging
collaboration among educators. This effort could include an update of Brokers of Expertise
(http://www.myboe.org) to align with current technological and social media standards to
ensure students and teachers have access to high-quality content and digital resources.

The CDE could also seek to play a facilitation and convening role to link current resources.
Creating these kinds of professional learning communities are especially timely given the on-
going transition to the Common Core State Standards and are consistent with the principles
outlined by Superintendent Torlakson’s Educator Excellence Task Force report Greatness by
Design (available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/greatnessfinal.pdf).

Recommendation #8:
Determine how to provide regional and statewide education technology support in
the new Local Control Funding Formula policy climate.

The need for statewide and regional education technology support for teachers and schools
has never been higher. State education leaders should take steps to design a new system to
meet the needs of educators.
Page 16
Recommendation #9:
Build capacity for local and regional
decision making regarding instruc-
tional materials, including digital
curriculum resources.

The CDE, State Board of Education,

and education stakeholders should
develop guidance and procedures to
ensure alignment with the state curricu-
lum and to support local school district
decision making. These efforts should
ensure flexibility and variety in formats and allow for the use of open education resources.

Recommendation #10:
Lead state and multi-state efforts to define and establish education resource stan-
dards to improve the development of low-cost, shared resources.

Projects such as these can create a comprehensive suite of support for educators across the
state more economically than if efforts are duplicated by multiple districts. They are also a
potential solution to deliver support to many small and medium sized rural and suburban
districts.

Assessment

Recommendation #11:
Based on the Smarter Balanced field test experience in spring 2014, further identify
technology readiness gaps in schools and advocate for funding to ensure schools
have the necessary technology and professional development support.

The field test provides schools the opportunity to prepare students for success and serves as
a barometer of technology capability, which allows the state and local educational agencies to
assess computer availability and server capacity to prepare for the new testing in spring 2015.

Recommendation #12:
Establish professional development programs and platforms for using technology in
formative learning assessment.

The CDE and education stakeholders should collaborate to provide technical assistance to
educators. This may include constructing an approval process on a state platform (possibly
including an updated Brokers of Expertise website) to collect, review, and process these de-
Page 17
velopment opportunities to ensure qual-
ity and alignment to the Common Core
State Standards. It may also be possible to
create a reasonable fee schedule so devel-
opment costs can be recouped, thereby
incentivizing county offices of education,
local districts, and charter schools to share
their programs.

Recommendation #13:
Develop and support student
recognition programs that measure 21st century skills, demonstrate learning of stan-
dards-based concepts, and allow students to personalize their learning.

Develop creative assessments and credentials to validate accomplishments—including dig-

ital badges, portfolios, and other innovative ways to ensure learning is relevant to the real
world and validated by experts in various fields. The CDE can help lead state and multi-state
efforts to define and develop useful metrics for the educational use of technology data that
support individualized and personalized instruction.

Infrastructure

Recommendation #14:
Aggressively pursue statewide and regional partnership opportunities to enhance
broadband connectivity and access to Internet-connecting devices.

Identify state and federal funding sources, develop advisories on local funding options, and
explore industry partnerships to connect student homes to the Internet at lower prices.

Statewide and regional groups can pursue public-private partnerships—and seek to leverage
the scale of California purchasing power—to provide for discounts on technology hardware,
software, and other services or resources. They can also help build local and regional capaci-
ty by creating a clearinghouse of model practices, policies, and contracts school districts may
choose to adopt.

The CDE and education stakeholders should also work with other agencies to develop
e-waste mitigation partnerships as devices are replaced to stay current with the rapid pace of
technological change.

Page 18
Recommendation #15:
Ensure school districts design school facilities with technology and the Common
Core State Standards in mind.

Based on Superintendent Torlakson’s Schools of the Future report (available at http://www.

cde.ca.gov/LS/fa/sf/documents/sotfreport.pdf), establish statewide recommendations for
funding, building, and modernizing schools to accommodate new education technologies
and classroom designs for modern curriculum configurations. Seek and share successful,
cost-effective funding strategies to support technology initiatives independent of facilities
projects.

Recommendation #16:
Monitor and expand network bandwidth to support the move toward deployment of
one-to-one computing.

Students and educators must have the ability to use Internet-connected devices to enable
24/7 learning. These devices must also have the capability to be used as tools for assess-
ments. In addition to adopting and supporting minimum bandwidth standards, the state
should provide tools and guidance to schools and districts to ensure they are ready and have
the capacity for emerging education and testing environments.

Recommendation #17:
Pursue measures to close the digital divide
among California students and promote
broadband adoption among California
residents.

The CDE should take a national leadership

role in seeking federal E-rate reform. The
CDE should engage directly with the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to advo-
cate for the continued growth of the California
Teleconnect Fund to support education-eligible
services for at-home learning. In addition, the CDE should engage with the Federal Com-
munications Commission (FCC) and the United States Congress to provide network and
Internet connections and technology resources to high-need areas. Policymakers should also
examine establishing a universal lifeline broadband policy.

Page 19
Recommendation #18:
Explore the deployment of statewide
cloud computing data centers.

These scalable and flexible data centers can

support instruction through the capacity to
address changing requirements quickly and
cost-effectively. The CDE and education
stakeholders should work with technology
industry representatives to help districts,
county offices of education, and other
service providers outline technical require-
ments.

These conversations could include a deter-

mination of cloud-computing options, including the feasibility of different solutions, cost
analysis, and implementation recommendations—such as matters of privacy, access, and
security of data in these systems.

Recommendation #19:
The California Department of Education should help lead this transition by creating
a senior-level position for education technology.

This position should provide visionary and innovative advice to CDE leadership and edu-
cation stakeholders to support the integration of mobile learning concepts throughout our
state’s education system. These efforts could include the coordination with stakeholders of
the compilation of a roadmap to assist school districts in their efforts to achieve the technol-
ogy infrastructure required to support the goals of this Blueprint. The position also should
promote the effective use of technology-related goals, initiatives, and funding opportunities
to improve teaching and learning for California’s school districts and schools. All education
organizations—from county to local—should also ensure representation of education tech-
nology personnel at the executive level.

Page 20
appendix a: blueprinT developMenT proCess

Immediately after being sworn in as California’s 27th State Superintendent of Public Instruc-
tion, Tom Torlakson convened a 59-member Transition Advisory Team.

This team included parents, teachers, classified staff, administrators, superintendents, school
board members, business and union leaders, and higher education and nonprofit represen-
tatives. The team was tasked with studying issues facing California public education and
creating a Blueprint of recommendations for improving education in California. Their work
ended in the publication of A Blueprint for Great Schools: Transition Advisory Team Report
(August 9, 2011).

A Blueprint for Great Schools provides a new direction for our education system. Its key ele-
ments include a focus on 21st century skills, the need to meet the needs of the whole child,
and a call to rebuild the ranks of California’s educators with the resources and respect they
deserve.

The Transition Advisory Team’s report also cites an urgency to address the effective use of
technology across the education enterprise. Its findings included a call for the increased use
of digital instructional materials. It recommends that California education should “facilitate
the infusion of 1:1 computing in school, after school, and in the home: provide devices,
Internet access, new digital curriculum materials, capacity for ongoing diagnostic assessment,
professional development and network support, and institute an open standard for the ex-
change of educational information.” (A Blueprint for Great Schools, page 13).

To address these recommendations Superintendent Torlakson sought the expertise of a

48-member Education Technology Task Force (Task Force) of state educational practi-
tioners, leaders, board members, and technicians.

He charged this group to review current research provided by the National Education Technolo-
gy Plan: Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology (available at http://www.
ed.gov/technology/netp-2010) and to use that model and conceptual framework to develop
a long-range plan to further integrate 21st century skills into California’s K–12 education
system.

Upon completion of this process on August 16, 2012, the Task Force delivered to Superin-
tendent Torlakson a memorandum outlining their recommendations on the topics presented
above.

Superintendent Torlakson and his staff then spent several months making presentations
around the state and receiving comments on the recommendations. This “listening tour”
process was designed to receive input and ensure there was ample support and agreement
with the recommendations.

Page 21
California Department of Education staff also reviewed the work and research-based re-
ports of several leading organizations.

The staff began work on this Education Technology Blueprint by reviewing and building
upon the work and research-based reports of several leading education organizations. These
reports, along with ten years of annual reports to the CDE and the State Legislature from
the California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP), demonstrate the ongoing and com-
plex need for education technology planning, collaboration, and the leveraging of resources
across the state.

California educational leadership groups have prepared position papers and provided
thoughtful recommendations since the mid-1990s.

The Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) published a position paper

prepared by its Technology Leadership Group. This paper provides guidance to teachers,
site leaders, district leaders, and state leaders. It takes a systemic view and calls for “changes
across all levels of the complex network of the education system.”

These suggested changes include encouraging teachers to teach 21st century skills, advising
school site leaders to provide resources and training to classroom teachers, suggesting that
district leaders provide access to new tools for communication and online digital tools, and
proposing that the state consider revisions in all curricular areas to better support digital
learners including expanding the use of online instructional materials.

The California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) issued

a call for revision of the regulations surrounding the implementation of online learning in
K–12. The proposed changes included recommendations about seat-time requirements and
associated daily attendance accounting, site-based requirements and independent study pro-
visions, contiguous counties and other charter school restrictions, and provisions to student
access and equity in regard to online content and learning opportunities.

Since the 1990s, the CDE has worked diligently to stay abreast of issues in educational
technology. The CDE has also worked to provide state leadership to leverage collaborative
work and provide economies of scale. It also has sought to implement support systems for
students, teachers, and administrators.

The previous work and planning documents served to guide the discussions and reviews
during the development of this new version of an educational technology plan for the state,
now called the Education Technology Blueprint.

The 2014–2017 Education Technology Blueprint will not be the final word on this subject.
Just as technology evolves so will our state’s Education Technology Vision. Please continue
to visit our website at http://www.cde.ca.gov for more information.

Page 22
appendix b: blueprinT ConCepTual fraMework

To organize the Education Technology Task Force and conduct group and private inter-
views, briefings, and input sessions, the Principal Advisor to the State Superintendent of
Public Instruction and the staff of the CDE’s Education Data Management Division uti-
lized the design of the National Education Technology Plan 2010 as a construct to organize
comments, feedback, and document submissions (see box below).

This framework allowed for a full review of the technology landscape in California and pre-
vented a premature call to action without the necessary context. This broad construct also
helped to direct a thoughtful consideration of current and emerging trends. It helped ensure
these conversations did not inadvertently overlook any area of education technology policy.

CDE staff presented the focus areas and the goal statements in the National Technology
Plan 2010 to the Education Technology Task Force Members. Staff also presented them
during the various public input sessions and meetings.

The Task Force discovered that the structure of the National Plan was well-known in the
field of education technology. It also received comments online that were formulated to
align with the National Technology Plan construct. The Task Force used this structure to
prepare and organize its final memo of recommendations to the Superintendent.

The National Technology Plan Goals

Learning: All learners will have engaging and empowering learning experiences,
both in and out of school, that prepare them to be active, creative, knowledgeable,
and ethical participants in our globally networked society.

Assessment: Our education system at all levels will leverage the power of technol­
ogy to measure what matters and use assessment data for continuous improve­
ment.

Teaching: Professional educators will be supported individually and in teams with

technology that connects them to data, content, resources, expertise, and learning
experiences that enable and inspire more effective teaching for all learners.

Infrastructure: All students and educators will have access to a comprehensive

infrastructure for learning when and where they need it.

Productivity: Our education system at all levels will redesign processes and struc­
tures to take advantage of the power of technology to improve outcomes while
making more efficient use of time, money, and staff.

Page 23
bibliography

Association of California School Administrators (ACSA). 2010. Technology Leadership

Group Position Paper. https://www.slideshare.net/dvodicka/tlg-positionpaperjuly2010pdf
(Accessed July 1, 2012).

California County Superintendents Educational Services Association. 2011. California

eLearning Framework. http://ccsesa.org/?wpfb_dl=1070 (Accessed February 11, 2012).

California Department of Education. California Career Technical Education Model Curricu-

lum Standards: Grade Seven through Twelve. Sacramento: California Department of Educa-
tion, 2013. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/sf/ctemcstandards.asp (Accessed February 2013).

California Department of Education. Model School Library Standards for California Public
Schools. Sacramento: California Department of Education, 2010. https://www.cde.ca.gov/
be/st/ss/documents/librarystandards.pdf (Accessed February 3, 2012).

California Department of Education, California Education Technology Task Force. Con-

nect, Compute and Compete. Sacramento: California Department of Education, 1996.

California Department of Education, Commission on Technology in Learning. 2003. “Rec-

ommendations for California K–12 Education Technology.” A report accepted by the Cali-
fornia State Board of Education. May 7, 2003.

California Department of Education, Education Technology Task Force. 2012. “Education

Technology Task Force Recommendations.” A memo presented to the California State Su-
perintendent of Public Instruction, Sacramento, August 16, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/
eo/in/documents/efftmemo.pdf (Accessed August 18, 2012).

California Department of Education, Transition Advisory Team. 2011. A Blueprint for Great
Schools. A report presented to the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Au-
gust 2011. http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/bpcontents.asp (Accessed February 1, 2012).

Common Core State Standards Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Ca-
reer (CCSS). 2012. http://www.corestandards.org/ (Accessed March 2, 2012).

National Alliance of Business. 2000. A Nation of Opportunity: Report ofthe 21st Century Work-
force Commission. (Washington, D.C.: National Alliance of Business.

National Association of State Boards of Education. 2012. Born in Another Time: Ensuring
Educational Technology meets the Needs of Students Today—and Tomorrow.
http://www.nasbe.org/wp-content/uploads/Born-in-Another-Time-NASBE-full-report.
pdf (Accessed December 6, 2012).
National Research Council. 2000. How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school

Page 24
(Expanded edition). J. D. Bransford, A. Brown and R. Cocking (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Na-
tional Academy Press.

National Research Council. 2009. Learning science in informal environments: People, places,
and pursuits. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, and M. A. Feder (eds.). Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.

National Research Council. 2003. Planning for two transformations in education and learn-
ing technology: Report of a workshop. R. D. Pea, W. A. Wulf, S. W. Elliot, and M. Darling
(eds.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. 2007. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in
grades K-8. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, and A. W. Shouse (eds.). Washington D.C.:
National Academy Press.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21). 2013. http://www.p21.org/ (Accessed March 5,
2012).

Project Tomorrow. 2012. Speak Up 2012 Survey. http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/index.

html (Accessed August 2012).

State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), 2012. Leading, Inspiring,

Empowering: SETDA 2013-2016 Strategic Plan. http://setda.org/ (Accessed April 11,
2014).

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Transforming American

Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Educa-
tion. 2010. http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf (Accessed January 5, 2012).

Vockley, Martha. Maximizing the Impact: The Pivotal Role of Technology in a 21st Century Education
System. Washington, D.C.: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2007. http://www.eric.ed.gov/
PDFS/ED519463.pdf (Accessed May, 10, 2012).

Page 25
eduCaTion TeChnology Task forCe MeMbers

The Superintendent wishes to thank the following individuals for their contribution to the
Education Technology Blueprint Planning Process:

• Ambassador Frank Baxter, Co-Chairman, Alliance of College-Ready Public Schools

• Michael Berg, Superintendent, Central Unified School District
• Kenneth Brown, Associate Systems Engineer, Booz Allen Hamilton
• Kelly Calhoun, Assistant Superintendent, Chief Technology Officer, Santa Clara
County Office of Education
• James Carreon, Assistive Technology Coordinator, California School for the Blind
• Vanitha Chandrasekhar, Education Technology Coordinator, Long Beach Unified
School District
• Steve Clemons, Assistant Superintendent, Chief Technology Officer, San Diego
County Office of Education
• John Cradler, President, Educational Support Systems
• Robert Craven, Chief Technology Officer, Fullerton Elementary School District
• Shirley Diaz, Deputy Superintendent, Educational Services, Glenn County Office
of Education
• Dawn Egan, Teacher/Categorical Projects, Lassen Union High School District
• John Fleischman, Assistant Superintendent, Technology Services, Sacramento
County Office of Education
• Jo-Ann Fox, Teacher, California, Teachers of the Year Semi-Finalist, Escondido
Union School District
• Lisa Gonzales, Coordinator, Curriculum and Instruction, Santa Clara County Office
of Education
• Brigette Hunley, Principal, Brigette Hunley Consulting
• John Ittelson, Professor Emeritus, California State University, Monterey Bay
• Anjali Kausar, School Board Trustee, Cupertino Union Elementary School District
• Stephen Kay, Assistant Professor, San Jose State University
• Machele Kilgore, Principal, Pacific Coast High School
• Kurt Larsen, Senior Research Associate/Producer, WestEd
• Mike Lawrence, Executive Director, Computer-Using Educators, Inc.
• Anne Mallory, Superintendent, Imperial County Office of Education

Page 26
• Nonette Martin, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services, Bassett Unified
School District
• Chuck McMinn, President, NapaLearns
• Steve Midgley, Principal, Mixrun LLC
• Richard Miller, Superintendent, Riverside Unified School District
• Jane Mintz, Director, Educational Technology, Oak Park Unified School District
• Barbara Nemko, Superintendent, Napa County Office of Education
• Michelle Pacansky-Brock, Online Associate Faculty, Mt. San Jacinto College
• Richard Quinones, Assistant Superintendent/Chief Technology Officer, Los Ange-
les County Office of Education
• Rebecca Randall, Vice President Education Programs, Common Sense Media
• Marisa Rivas, Educational Consultant, Digital Edge Learning
• Ron Rohovit, Deputy Director of Education, California Science Center
• Bill Selak, Teacher, Covina-Valley Unified School District
• Ken Shelton, Teacher, Los Angeles Unified School District
• Kevin Silberberg, Superintendent, Standard Elementary School District
• Brad Strong, Senior Director, Education, Children Now
• Hilda Sugarman, School Board Trustee, Fullerton Elementary School District
• Torrence Temple, Teacher, Murrieta Valley Unified School District
• David Tokofsky, Strategist, Associated Administrators of Los Angeles
• Rebecca Wardlow, Provost, Ashford University
• Glen Warren, Teacher, Orange Unified School District
• Paul Watters, Director, Regional Occupational Program, Butte County Office of
Education
• John White, School Administrator, Los Angeles Unified School District
• Esther Wojcicki, Teacher, Palo Alto High School
• Amy Wong, Director, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Integra-
tion, Silicon Valley Education Foundation
• Alexander Zwissler, Executive Director/CEO, Chabot Space and Science Center

Page 27
California deparTMenT of eduCaTion sTaff

• Craig Cheslog, Principal Advisor to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction

• Jennifer Anderson, Chief Scheduler to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Lara Azar, Interim Communications Director
• Rebecca Barrett, Special Advisor to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Christopher Dowell, Education Programs Consultant, K–12 Innovation and Im-
provement Office, Improvement and Accountability Division
• Megan A. Ellis, M.A., Strategic Initiatives Coordinator, Executive Office
• Dina Fong, Staff Services Manager, Superintendent’s Initiatives Office
• Alyssa Hanou, Special Assistant to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Larry Hiuga, Education Programs Consultant, Education Technology Office, Edu-
cational Data Management Division
• Joyce Hinkson, Education Programs Consultant, Instructional Resources Unit, Cur-
riculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division
• Amy Bisson Holloway, General Counsel
• Giorgos Kazanis, Information Officer I
• Kelly Madsen, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator and Policy Advisor
• T. Michelle Magyar, Education Programs Consultant, College Preparation and Post-
secondary Programs Office, Career and College Transition Division
• Katina Oliphant, Staff Services Analyst, Superintendent’s Correspondence Unit
• Jose Ortega, Administrator, Education Technology Office, Educational Data Man-
agement Division
• Joseph Radding, Administrator, College Preparation and Postsecondary Programs
Office, Career and College Transition Division
• Barbara Ross, Education Programs Consultant, Education Technology Office, Edu-
cational Data Management Division
• Cindy Quiralte, Special Assistant to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Justin Adelman, Staff Services Analyst, Superintendent's Correspondence Unit
• Jason Spencer, Senior Policy Advisor to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Californians dediCaTed To eduCaTion foundaTion sTaff

• Shelly Masur, Chief Executive Officer

• Jordan Wente, Chief Operations Officer
• Tim Sbranti, Executive Director (2011-2013)
Page 28
speCial aCknowledgeMenTs

The members of the Education Technology Task Force join the State Superintendent of
Public Instruction and his staff in thanking The Californians Dedicated to Education Foun-
dation, a 501(c)(3), for their generous financial support during the development of this
Blueprint. The California Department of Education also acknowledges the generous support
from the S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation, the Intel Corporation, and Bridgepoint Education.
This page intentially left blank.