You are on page 1of 118

Chairs

Report on
The Common Core Technology Project
Ad Hoc Committee





















August 26, 2014 Committed to the Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles
Governing Board of The Los Angeles Unified School District


The Common Core Technology Project Ad Hoc Committee



Committee Members
Ms. Mnica Ratliff, Chairperson
Ms. Tamar Galatzan (represented by Aixle Aman, her Deputy Chief of Staff)

District Staff
Mr. Ronald Chandler, Chief Information Officer, Information Technology Division
Mr. Gerardo Loera, Executive Director, Office of Curriculum, Instruction & School
Support

External Representatives
Alvaro Alvarenga, Administrator, Parent Community Student Services
Ms. Myrna Brutti, Representative, Associated Administrators of Los Angeles
Mr. Alex Candelaria, Parent Representative, Eagle Rock ES and Eagle Rock MS
Ms. Raquel Cedillo, Parent Representative, Haddon ES and Pacoima MS
Ms. Sandy Escobedo, Senior Policy Analyst, Advancement Project
Mr. Lester Garcia, Manager, Community Relations, SEIU Local 99
Ms. Lisa Karahalios, Representative, UTLA
Ms. Quynh Nguyen, Member, LAUSD School Construction Bond Citizens Oversight
Committee
Ms. Linda Perez, President, California Schools Employees Association


Acknowledgement

The Committee wishes to recognize the contributions of the late Ms. Marguerite
Poindexter LaMotte, who served as a Committee Member until she passed away in
December 2013. We are extremely grateful for Ms. LaMottes passionate and
tireless efforts on behalf of all of the students of the Los Angeles Unified School
District.















ii

BOARD OF EDUCATION
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

MNICA RATLIFF
Board Member, District 6



August 26, 2014

Hon. Richard Vladovic
President of the Governing Board of
the Los Angeles Unified School District
333 S. Beaudry Ave., 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017


Re: Chairs Report on the CCTP Ad Hoc Committee

Dear Dr. Vladovic:

As the Chairperson of the Common Core Technology Project Ad Hoc
Committee, I am filing for presentation to the Governing Board of the Los Angeles
Unified School District the enclosed Chairs Report.
From now through 8:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on September 8, 2014, I
will be collecting any comments on this Report, whether from Committee Members,
External Representatives, LAUSD staff or the general public. Such comments may be
delivered to me via email, at monica.ratliff@lausd.net, or to my office at 333 S.
Beaudry Ave., 24th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017. I will then annex any
comments so received to this Report via a supplement, which I will present to you
by September 10, 2014.
Sincerely,

Mnica Ratliff, Chairperson

Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles


Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District
Common Core Technology Project Ad Hoc Committee

iii

Table of Contents

Title Page ................................................................................................................................................................ i
Committee Participants .................................................................................................................................. ii
Transmittal Letter ............................................................................................................................................ iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................. iv
Executive Statement ....................................................................................................................................... ix
Chairs Report on the Common Core Technology Project Ad Hoc Committee
I. Background
I.A. What is CCTP? ............................................................................................................... 1
I.B. Desired Outcomes ....................................................................................................... 1
I.C. Brief History of the CCTP ......................................................................................... 2
II. Process
II.A. Committee Formation ........................................................................................... 11
II.B. Meetings and Testimony
August 28, 2013 ................................................................................................... 11
September 25, 2013 ........................................................................................... 15
October 22, 2013 ................................................................................................. 20
November 19, 2013 ............................................................................................ 28
January 7, 2014 .................................................................................................... 35
February 6, 2014 ................................................................................................. 41
March 5, 2014 ....................................................................................................... 47
April 24, 2014 ....................................................................................................... 52
May 28, 2014 ......................................................................................................... 56
II.C. Pearson Curriculum Demonstration ............................................................... 60
II.D. Preparation of Report ........................................................................................... 60
III. Findings and Recommendations
III.A. Virtual Learning Complex and the CCTP
Overview ................................................................................................................. 63
Network Reliability and Technology Supports ...................................... 63
One-to-One Technology .................................................................................... 64
Wi-Fi Access........................................................................................................... 65
III.B. Timelines ................................................................................................................... 65
III.C. Pricing and Price-Messaging ............................................................................. 67
III.D. Bond Funding and CCTP Sustainability ....................................................... 69
III.E. Device and Curriculum Selection
Choice of One-Device-Fits-All ........................................................................ 71
Request for Proposal (RFP) Requirements .......................................... 73
Choice of Scoring Rubric .................................................................................. 75
Bundling Curriculum and Device ................................................................. 76
Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................ 77
Scoring Unfinished Content ............................................................................ 80
III.F. Curriculum Requirements
Digital and Dynamic Curriculum .................................................................. 81
No Repurposed or Realigned Content ........................................................ 82
Differentiation of Instruction ......................................................................... 83

iv

Early Education .................................................................................................... 84


Memory Consumption ...................................................................................... 85
III.G. Partnership Model ................................................................................................. 86
III.H. Security and Safety
Overview ................................................................................................................. 86
Communications .................................................................................................. 87
Device Protection ................................................................................................ 88
Safe-Passages ........................................................................................................ 88
School Site Storage ............................................................................................. 89
RF Exposure ........................................................................................................... 89
III.I. Training
Overview ................................................................................................................. 91
Professional Development .............................................................................. 91
Student Training .................................................................................................. 93
Parent Education ................................................................................................. 93
III.J. Discipline .................................................................................................................... 95
III.K. Loss of, or Damage to, Devices ......................................................................... 96
III.L. Software and Accessories ................................................................................... 97
III.M. Engaging Parents in Monitoring Student Device Use ............................ 97
III.N. Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 98
III.O. SBAC Common Core Assessments ............................................................... 101
III.P. e-Books and e-Textbooks ................................................................................ 103
III.Q. LAUSD Communications Surrounding the CCTP .................................. 104
III.R. Committee Access to Information
Pearson Content ............................................................................................... 105
Information Available to the Committee ............................................... 106
LAUSD Personnel Participation in Committee Meetings ................ 106
III.S. Termination of the Committee ...................................................................... 107


APPENDICES
A1.
CCTP website pages http://achieve.lausd.net/cctp
A2.
Common Core Technology Project Plan, dated September 19, 2012
http://www.laschools.org/bond/meeting-
archives/download/agendas/2012/BOC_Meeting_Packet.091912.pdf
A3.
Common Core Technology Project Plan, dated October 9, 2012
http://laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/SUPT%20UPDATE%20-
%20Common%20Core%20Tech%20Proj%20Plan.pdf
A4.
Common Core Technology Project Plan, dated November 13, 2012
http://laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/SUPT%20RPT%20-
%20Common%20Core%20Technology.pdf
A5.
Minutes of School Construction Bond Citizens Oversight Committee
meeting held November 14, 2012
http://www.laschools.org/bond/meeting-
archives/download/meetings/minutes/2012/November_Minutes.pdf

A6.

A7.

A8.
A9.
A10.
A11.

A12.

A13.
A14.
A15.
A16.
A17.
A18.
A19.

LAUSD News Release, Deasy Very Disappointed in BOC for Rejecting


Plan to Provide Electronic Devices to All LAUSD Students, dated
November 14, 2012
http://home.lausd.net/ourpages/auto/2012/11/14/61435567/NR-
091-BOCandED-111412rv.pdf
Minutes of School Construction Bond Citizens Oversight Committee
meeting held January 23, 2013
http://www.laschools.org/bond/meeting-
archives/download/meetings/minutes/2013/January_Minutes.final.p
df
Board Report #157-12/13, dated 2-12-2013
Common Core Technology Project Plan, dated February 12, 2013
Opinion of Bond Counsel, Sidley Austin LLP, dated September 7, 2012
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortiums technical requirements,
11-1-13
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2011/12/Tech_Framework_Device_Requirements_1
1-1-13.pdf
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2011/12/Executive_Summary_Tech_Framework.pdf
Publishers Criteria for Common Core State Standards, 4-12-12
(literacy) and 4-9-12 (math)
http://www.corestandards.org/wpcontent/uploads/Publishers_Crite
ria_for_Literacy_for_Grades_K-2.pdf
http://www.corestandards.org/wp-
content/uploads/Publishers_Criteria_for_Literacy_for_Grades_3-
12.pdf
http://www.corestandards.org/wp-
content/uploads/Math_Publishers_Criteria_K-
8_Spring_2013_FINAL1.pdf
Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 1118: Computing Devices for the
Common Core Technology Project, issued March 1, 2013
List of review committee members for RFP #1118
Board Report # 327-12/13, dated 6-18-2013
http://laschoolboard.org/06-18-13RegBd
Agreement, dated as of July 16, 2013, between Apple Inc. and LAUSD
http://laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/06-18-
13Apple%20AgreementiPadCCTP.pdf
Meeting agenda and handouts from Common Core Technology Project
Ad Hoc Committee Meetings
Board Informative re: Common Core Technology Plan Mobile Device
Management Incident and Remediation Plan, dated September 24,
2013
LAUSD News Release, dated September 24, 2013
http://home.lausd.net/apps/news/show_news.jsp?REC_ID=329426&
id=27
vi

A20.
A21.

A22.
A23.
A24.

A25.
A26.

A27.
A28.
A29.
A30.
A31.
A32.
A33.
A34.
A35.
A36.
A37.

Common Core Technology Project Plan, dated October 29, 2013


http://laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/10-29-
13CCTPpresentation.pdf
Student Success Through an Evaluation-Based Common Core
Technology Project resolution (Ratliff), approved 11-12-2013.
http://laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/FINALCCTPResolution.p
df
Board Report #071-13/14, dated 11-12-2013
http://laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/11-12-
13BR071REVISED.pdf
Common Core Technology Project Plan (Presentation to Board), dated
November 12, 2013 http://laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/11-
12-13CCTPpresentation.pdf
Bond Oversight Committee Information Technology Task Force
Report, dated 11-18-2013. http://www.laschools.org/bond/meeting-
archives/download/reports/2013/BOC_CCTP_Phase_2_1A_IT_TF_Rep
ort_11_18_13.pdf
Board Report #129-13/14, dated 12-10-2013
Despite Bad Press, LAUSD's iPad Curriculum Is Impressing Educators,
Beth Barrett, L.A. Weekly Thursday, December 19, 2013.
http://www.laweekly.com/2013-12-19/news/lausd-ipad-pearson-
common-core/
Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 14034: Laptop Devices for the
Common Core Technology Project, issued February 10, 2014
D.A. Says No Charges Warranted Over L.A. Schools iPad Contract,
Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times, April 21, 2014
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79977452/
Correspondence regarding Mr. Tuckers attendance at the April 24,
2014, Committee meeting.
Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 14047: Common Core Technology
Project Chromebook Option, issued May 1, 2014
Board Informative re: CCTP Device Take Home - Test Pilot, dated May
19, 2014
Interim Evaluation Report of the Common Core Technology Project,
dated May 20, 2014
Board Informative re: Johnnie Cochran Jr. Middle School - WiFi
Concerns, dated June 19, 2014
Letter from Agustin Urgiles, Director of Education Applications,
California Emerging Technology Fund to Charles Ford, LAUSD CCTP,
dated July 2, 2014
Board Informative re: Update to Johnnie Cochran Jr. Middle School -
WiFi Concerns, dated July 11, 2014
Board Informative re: New Bond Issuance Update, dated August 11,
2014
Why Some Schools Are Selling All Their iPads, Meghan E. Murphy, The
Atlantic, August 5, 2014
vii

A38.

A39.
A40.
A41.
A42.

A43.
A44.
A45.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/08/whats-the-
best-device-for-interactive-learning/375567/
The Common Core State Standards: Caution and Opportunity for Early
Childhood Education, National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC), 2012
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/11_CommonCore1_2A_rv2.pdf
Form 990 filed by American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral
Sciences
Proposal score sheets with scorer comments for RFP #1118
Notice to Stamford Public Schools regarding Pearsons July 16-20,
2012 summer institute, Bringing Common Core to the Classroom
Sample Procurement forms relating to conflicts: (1) Contract
Integrity Certification for RFP No. 1125; and (2) Certificate for LAUSD
Personnel Participating in Source Selection Concerning
Nondisclosure, Conflicts of Interest, and Rules of Conduct
Excerpt from Unofficial Transcript of April 24, 2014 Committee
meeting
Form of Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Certification
Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Certification tendered to
Boardmember Galatzan and her staff

viii


Executive Statement
Over the past year, I have had the responsibility of chairing the
Common Core Technology Project Ad Hoc Committee (the Committee) as
we strived to learn more about the Common Core Technology Project (the
CCTP). As a body that met repeatedly over ten months, perhaps the
Committees greatest contribution has been facilitating the flow of
information regarding the CCTP to and from the public, and I am hopeful that
this Report will further that mission.
The CCTP is an important project. Not only in terms of its estimated
$1 billion plus cost of initial implementation, but also in terms of its potential
impact on the lives of LAUSDs 650,000 students, many of whom do not yet
have equitable access to the 21st Century technologies that they will need to
master in order to graduate college- and career-ready.
The Committee heard over 27 hours of presentations from executive
and senior staff of LAUSDs Information Technology, Procurement, Facilities,
Curriculum, Instruction & School Support, and Data & Accountability
divisions, the Office of the Superintendent and Los Angeles School Police, as
well as leaders from many external organizations and public speakers.
I greatly respect the numerous presenters who spent hours of their
time providing information and answering questions. It has been extremely
obvious throughout this process that all who spoke at the Committee
meetings have a genuine desire to further LAUSD's goal of helping all
students achieve.
The Committee existence allowed questions to be asked, concerns to
be raised, information to be presented, and suggestions to be made in a
public forum. This report documents and synthesizes those questions,
concerns, information, and suggestions raised during the Committee or
available to the Committee and the public. Many of the recommendations
that I present originated with the Committees diligent External
Representatives, and I am extremely grateful for their contributions. In
addition, I am presenting other recommendations that make sense in light of
the information available to the Committee and the public.
From now through September 8, 2014 at 8:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight
Time, I will be collecting written comments on this Report, whether from
Committee members, External Representatives, LAUSD staff or the general
public. I will then annex such comments to this Report as a supplement to
be made a part of the public record by September 10, 2014.

ix


As the Board of Education and the public consider future CCTP
investments and phases, it is extremely important that remaining questions
be answered, concerns be resolved, and all suggestions and
recommendations be taken seriously, reviewed and addressed in a timely
fashion.
Sincerely,

Mnica Ratliff, Chairperson


Chairs Report on the Common Core Technology Project Ad Hoc Committee

I. Background
I.A. What is the Common Core Technology Project?
The Common Core Technology Project (CCTP) is a major capital investment in
technology with the aim of providing schools with 21st Century tools to enhance the
instructional possibilities for both the students and teachers of the Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD), in order to increase college- and career-readiness
of LAUSDs graduates. The CCTP aims to create new modes of interactive and
individualized learning, as well as to increase student digital literacy and readiness
for computer adaptive assessments. Key components of the CCTP include:

Ensuring that students and teachers are equipped with devices on a one-to-
one basis, to enable immediate technology access for all;

Upgrading school infrastructure to support the anticipated peak levels of


simultaneous technology usage and connectivity; and

Implementing a mobile device management system, ideally, (a) to distribute


content and configure devices easily and remotely and (b) to promote an
appropriate and safe online environment for LAUSDs students.

Another major component of the CCTP involves the use of digital interactive
curricula that are aligned with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which
have recently been mandated by the State of California, along with 44 other States.
I.B. Desired Outcomes
LAUSD has asserted that the need to catch up to the way its students learn is long
overdue. LAUSD has been strategizing to improve the school infrastructure to
accommodate 21st Century teaching and learning technology for several years.
Californias adoption of CCSS has been identified by LAUSD as a catalyst for its
movement in this direction.
By enabling and implementing one-to-one devices in every K-12 classroom, LAUSD
hopes to accomplish the following objectives1:

Providing educators with tools (devices) to advance student learning and


create learning spaces that are designed to increase learner engagement;

Supporting CCSS implementation by providing all students with the


opportunity to engage with digital curricula, interactive supports and

1 See the CCTPs website (http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/627)

adaptive assessments; and

Closing the Digital Divide by ensuring that all students have access to 21st
Century skills and technology.

The stated promise2 of the CCTP is that, when fully implemented, it would provide
all LAUSD students with access to:

e-instruction: Instruction geared for the 21st century;

e-curriculum: Individualized learning opportunities;

e-textbooks: Interactive, searchable textbooks;

e-tools: Including calculators, audio/video players and digital cameras; and

e-assessments: Ongoing feedback for personalized student learning plans.


I.C. A Brief History of the CCTP

With the following one line in Superintendent John Deasys annual Back-to-School
Address to Administrators, delivered August 9, 2012, LAUSDs Common Core
Technology Project was introduced.
I am committed to working with this amazing Board of Education for finding a way to
place a tablet in the hands of every student and school staff member. . . in the next 15
months.

LAUSD had been continually improving school technology infrastructure


incrementally for many years. However, Californias adoption of CCSS and the
specter of imminent mandatory computer adaptive assessments prompted LAUSD
to accelerate efforts to improve school infrastructure to accommodate 21st Century
teaching and learning.
Similarly, and in appreciation of the CCSS assessment schedule, LAUSD planned to
distribute one-to-one devices loaded with digital curriculum under the CCTP in
three distinct phases3:
Phase 1: Planning, Readiness & Demonstration. The initial phase would include
solution architecture, procurement activities, staffing, demonstration projects and
initial implementation of infrastructure. As of February 12, 2013, Phase 1 was
planned to run from March 2013 through December 2014, with all Phase 1 schools

2 Ibid.
3 The initial plan, which was revised before any portion came before the Board for a vote, involved a

more condensed 2-phase rollout, with demonstration projects at 13 identified Schools For the Future
(SFF) high schools followed immediately with district-wide implementation. See Common Core
Technology Project Plan, dated September 19, 2012, included as Appendix A2 hereto.

being prepared and outfitted with the devices by the start of the 2013/14 school
year.
Phase 2: System-Wide Demonstration. The second phase would include additional
schools, plus putting in place the staffing and administration necessary for the full
roll-out4. As of February 12, 2013, Phase 2 was planned to run from January 2014
through July 2014
Phase 3: District-Wide Rollout. Phase 3 was initially planned to run from July 2014
through December 2014, with the objective of completing all school site
infrastructure upgrades, staff trainings and distribution of devices to all of LAUSDs
650,000 plus students by December 2014.
On January 23, 2013, the School Construction Bond Citizens Oversight Committee
(BOC) recommended the Board amend the Information Technology Division
Strategic Execution Plans to approve the project definition and funding strategy for
Phase 1 of the CCTP, as described in Board Report No. 157-12/13. The BOCs
recommendation was not without dissent, as the measure was adopted by a vote of
9 ayes to 6 nays. Much of the controversy appears to have related to whether it is
appropriate for school construction bond proceeds to be used to fund such things as
devices, e-curricula, and implementation-related professional development for the
CCTP, as opposed to more traditional bond funded purchases like physical plant
construction and improvement projects. While the various arguments and
counterarguments are beyond the scope of this Report, we note that this issue was
raised in a number of fora including the BOC, but that LAUSDs bond counsel
ultimately opined on the proposed use of bond proceeds in connection with the
CCTP.5
The Board voted, on February 12, 2013, to approve the implementation of Phase 1:
Planning & Readiness of the CCTP, and, as recommended by the BOC, to fund the $50
million project with bond funds from Measures R and/or Y. At the same time, the
Board also authorized the Chief Facilities Executive and/or his designee to
commence procurement actions as necessary to implement Phase 1 of the CCTP.
This would bring one-to-one access to devices to 47 LAUSD schools, consisting of:
29 Office of Civil Rights Schools; 13 Schools for the Future; and five Proposition 39
charter schools co-located on five of those sites.
On March 1, 2013, LAUSDs Procurement Division issued Request for Proposal No.
1118 (RFP #1118), Computing Devices for the Common Core Technology Project.
The Scope of procurement for RFP #1118 included:

4 At the Boards January 14, 2014 meeting, Phase 2 was expanded to include devices and test-carts

for the Spring 2014 SBAC assessments.

5 See Findings and Recommendations Bond Funding and CCTP Sustainability, infra., and the

opinion of Sidley Austin LLP, dated September 7, 2012, included as Appendix A10 hereto.

Personal, interactive, portable computing devices for all Grade K-12 students
and teachers with curriculum and functional software appropriate to grade
level.

Plan for repair and/or replacement of devices and other equipment;

A train the trainer program and technical support; and

Collaboration with LAUSD in developing an evaluation of the impact and


success of the project.

RFP #1118 included a number of minimum technical qualifications. First, it


incorporated the Hardware Purchasing Guidelines of the Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortia (SBAC) by reference, and went on to include a number of
specifications with unknown origins relating to such matters as display type and
size, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity, local storage capacity, RAM, processor speed,
minimum operating systems, battery, camera, physical keyboard, off-line
functionality, carry case and screen protector. Some noteworthy areas where
LAUSDs specifications diverged from the SBACs guidelines included:

LAUSDs requirement that screens have multi-touch displaycapable of


operating with a stylus;

LAUSDs omission of SBAC-acceptable operating systems Mac OS X, Linux and


Chrome OS.

Proposals were to be priced on a per seat basis including all of the required
elements and any additional options offered.
The Digital Content and Curriculum requirements of RFP #1118 encompassed
content from Kindergarten to Grade 12 in English Language Arts and Kindergarten
to Grade 8 in Mathematics, aligned to the CCSS, as determined based on the
Publishers Criteria6. The content was to be piloted during Phase 1 and Proposers
committed to work with LAUSD to respond to review by LAUSD teachers and, where
shortcomings were to be determined, to identify and provide alternate curriculum
that would meet all key criteria. Other requirements included:

The content must be approved by the State of California by January 2015;

The content must be licensed to LAUSD for five years from the date of
delivery of a specific unit and shall be included in the per seat price;

The curriculum must be designed to support struggling learners, English

6 It was acknowledged that the Publishers Criteria for Grade 9-12 Mathematics had not yet been

released. However, no similar acknowledgement was made that the criteria for Grade K-8
Mathematics was not released either until April 2013.

Learners, and students with IEPs;

The content must be delivered digitally and dynamically, as opposed to


merely digitizing hard-copy textbooks;

Content must be originally designed using the CCSS and not retrofitted,
repurposed, or re-aligned as an after-thought;

The digital content and curriculum requirements also provided that the proposers
must furnish LAUSD with updates, improvements and new applications as they
evolve throughout the five-year license term at no additional cost.
Proposers were required to offer a warranty against normal wear and tear and
ensure delivery of all services for five years from the date of delivery of a specific
unit. Regardless of the cause of any loss, proposers were required to undertake to
provide replacement units to the end users site in no more than one day. The
proposers were specifically required to assume the risk of loss or damage of the
equipment provided, except that local school units would be responsible for any
replacement or repair costs due to the negligent or intentional act of an employee or
student. One strategy for mitigating the risk of loss or damage that was suggested to
proposers in RFP #1118 was to provide a percentage of overage or surplus stock of
equipment to be immediately at the ready should replacement be required.
There were a number of bidder qualifications included in the RFP #1118, including:

Proposers had to possess a minimum of two years experience developing or


implementing K-12 learning solutions for mobile devices; and

Proposers had to have substantial experience in a lead role in simultaneously


rolling out a minimum of 10,000 fully configured devices to multiple sites.

In response to RFP #1118, various Proposers submitted their proposals, and all
proposals by responsible bidders would be scored. Responsible bidders was
defined as Proposers deemed: (1) to have adequate financial resources to perform a
contract; (2) able to comply with legal and regulatory requirements; (3) able to
deliver according to the CCTPs schedule; (4) to have a history of satisfactory
performance; (5) to have a good reputation regarding integrity; (6) able to obtain
and provide the necessary hardware, software, content, functionality, equipment,
training and facilities for the CCTP; and (7) otherwise eligible and qualified to
receive an award if its bid was chosen. In order to assess whether a Proposer was a
responsible bidder, the Responsible Bidder Criteria (Appendix J) attached to RFP
#1118 included a number of questions designed to elicit Proposer qualifications.
For example, Appendix J required Proposers to certify that neither they nor any firm
identified as Partners had defaulted on a contract within the past five years,
experienced certain insolvency events in the past three years or had ever been
prohibited or terminated for cause/default from any project for a school district or
other public agency within the United States.

Proposers whose scores fell in the competitive range would become acceptable
bidders, and LAUSD could allow such acceptable bidders to revise their proposals
and submit a Best and Final Offer Proposal (BAFO), in which case the score could
be adjusted to reflect the changes in the proposal. Finally, LAUSD would award to
one, two or all three of the three lowest bidders, in its sole discretion. RFP #1118
explicitly stated that qualification as a responsible bidder could be reevaluated
and a Proposer disqualified even once the procurement had moved on to the
Acceptable Bidder Proposal Scoring Process.
Finally, RFP #1118 included a scoring rubric with the various elements and their
respective weighting. The scoring metrics were divided into three primary
categories:

10 points for organizational qualification and experience7;

60 points for specifications of work to be performed8; and

30 points for per seat price.

It was also stated that LAUSD reserved the right to evaluate various optional items
as a tie-breaker, such as CCSS for pre-K intervention in English Language Arts and
Mathematics, Computer adaptive assessments, carts, learning management systems
and disposal/recycling. In this context, a tie was defined as final scores within 10
points of each other.
On March 20, 2013, RFP #1118 was amended, among other things: (a) to increase
the weight of the specifications of work to be performed from 60 points to 90 points,
by increasing the number of points for each subcategory by approximately 50%; and
(b) to eliminate the separate scoring of price, in recognition that price would
ultimately determine the three lowest bidders. The March 20, 2013 amendments
also imposed a requirement that a Lead Proposer shall submit no more than one
proposal.
Procurement promulgated a series of Addenda to RFP #1118 in late March and
early April 2013 clarifying certain provisions and responding to written questions
from prospective Proposers. Addendum 9, issued on April 4, 2013, included further
clarification of what LAUSD was seeking with respect to content, and asserted that
LAUSD highly prefers to evaluate these aspects on content loaded on the
demonstration devices:

7 The sub-categories here were nearly identical to the minimum requirements for Project

Management found elsewhere in the RFP.


8 Here, the sub-categories included: device requirements (12); device functionality (7.5); proposed

loaded software (4.5); proposed content alignment with CCSS (12); warranty and repair and
replacement program (9); training (3); delivery schedule and support structure (6); plan for parent
and community involvement (3); and use of small business enterprises (3).

Content must be delivered digitally and dynamically;

Content must make use of powerful technology tools to engage and support
students;

System must provide meaningful feedback and assessments aligned to SBAC


prototypes;

Students must have access to a variety of instructional activities including


simulations, games, and interactive tools for doing mathematics, reading,
writing, listening and speaking, and language;

Curriculum must be designed to support struggling learners, English


Learners, and students with IEPs;

The CCSS must have been used as the basis by which the content was
originally designed and not retrofitted, repurposed, or re-aligned as an after-
thought;

Content must be compatible with multiple platforms.

LAUSD received 13 proposals in response to RFP #1118 from firms interested in


providing computing devices along with professional services, consulting and
related items in support of the CCTP, as outlined in such RFP. Only one such
proposal incorporated a device other than a tablet. However, the proposal for that
device (a netbook) did not meet the minimum qualifications. Of the 13 proposals,
LAUSD received proposals with five different curricula that were ultimately scored.
The top three scorers that were deemed responsible bidders Apple, Arey Jones A
and Arey Jones B were invited to submit their BAFOs. It was at this stage that
LAUSD determined to reduce the device warranty term and content license period
from five years to three years. This change was made in response to several
inquiries by various proposers and LAUSDs determination that none of the
proposers could offer a five-year warranty. In particular, Procurement officials have
advised that no proposer had a battery that had lasted for five years, so they were
reluctant to provide a five-year warranty.
Each finalist then came back with a BAFO consisting of their final price offering and
revisions to their proposal, and their scores were re-adjusted. At this point, LAUSD
announced that Apples BAFO was the lowest in price and was scored the highest by
the selection panels.
At its June 18, 2013 Regular Board Meeting, the Board authorized LAUSD staff to
enter into a contract with Apple for the not to exceed amount of $30 million to
implement Phase 1 of the CCTP. Mark Hovatter, Chief Facilities Executive, executed
such contract on behalf of LAUSD as of July 16, 2013.

Phase 1 of CCTP was initiated with 47 schools in August 2013. Of the 47 pilot
schools, 13 were schools that had demonstrated success in early adoption of 1:1
technology-assisted learning, as part of the Schools for the Future program (SFF).
Another 29 schools were selected because they were identified by the Office of Civil
Rights (OCR) as those having the greatest need of access to modernized
instructional content. The remaining five were Proposition 39 charter schools co-
located with other Phase 1 schools. In all, 43 schools received devices for each of
their students, one school chose a partial deployment plan, and three schools
postponed their deployment to early 2014.
Also in August 2013, the CCTP Ad Hoc Committee was constituted and began its
work9. In September 2013, within a week of devices being handed out to students at
Theodore Roosevelt High School, Westchester Enriched Sciences Magnets and the
Fine Arts Academy at Dr. Maya Angelou Community High School as part of the Phase
1 rollout, it was widely reported10 that hundreds of such devices were modified by
students to disable LAUSDs Mobile Device Management system, and defeat LAUSDs
filtering system.
By the October 29, 2013 iteration of the Common Core Technology Project Plan,
LAUSD had trimmed its plans for Phase 2 of the CCTP. Phase 2 was revised to
include:

Rolling out 1-to-1 devices to students at a maximum of 36 schools (up to


40,000 devices) by April 2014;

Providing devices and orientation to administrators and certificated staff at


LAUSDs remaining schools by April 2014 (approximately 30,000 devices);
and

Providing tablet carts and testing devices to campuses with inadequate


technology so they can participate in the SBAC assessments scheduled for
Spring 2014.

On November 12, 2013, the Board passed the Student Success Through an
Evaluation-Based Common Core Technology Project resolution, which was brought
forward by the Committees Chair. Such resolution:

Determined that LAUSD would focus on Phases 1 and 2 of the CCTP during
the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years in order to resolve various issues that
had been brought to light;

Directed the Superintendent to bring certain policies, protocols and practices


9 See

Process Committee Formation and Process Meetings and Testimony, infra.

10 For example, Pete Demetriou for CBSLA.com, September 25, 2013, and Which Way LA on KCRW,

September 25, 2013.

to the Board for review prior to the conclusion of Phase 2;

Called for the acquisition of physical keyboards;

Directed the Superintendent to contract with an evaluator regarding the use


of iPads in Phases 1 and 2, as well as other devices and curricula in separate
technology programs around LAUSD;

Directed the Superintendent to establish a Phase 1L, for up to 7 non-Phase 1


and 2 high schools11 to pilot a 1-to-1 program using laptop devices with
Common Core-aligned curricula in English Language Arts (ELA) and
Mathematics chosen by teachers and administrators at the school sites;

Phase 1L shall include information regarding free Wi-Fi locations in school


neighborhoods and an investigation into providing home Wi-Fi access or
subsidized home Wi-Fi access; and

Required that an evaluation be conducted across Phases 1, 2 and 1L to


determine what device or devices and curriculum or curricula should be used
in any future Phases.

On January 14, 2014, the Board approved Phases 1L and Phase 2 and authorized an
aggregate of approximately $115 million to be funded from school construction
bond funds from Measures R, Y and Q, and another estimated $11.75 million from
LAUSDs General Fund (plus additional amounts that may be determined necessary
by bond counsel).
On February 10, 2014, LAUSDs Procurement Division issued Request for Proposal
No. 14034 (RFP #14034), Laptop Devices for the Common Core Technology Project.
The Scope of procurement for RFP #14034 included:

Laptop devices for Grade 9-12 students and teachers with curriculum and
functional software appropriate to grade level;

Plan for repair and/or replacement of portable computing devices and other
equipment; and

A Program Evaluation and Assessment component.

Some interesting comparisons with RFP 1118 include:

The requirement of a multi-touch displaycapable of operating with a


stylus was abrogated;

11 When options schools and co-located magnets and charters were added, the total number of high

schools participating in Phase 1L would increase to 27.

The Bluetooth requirement was dropped;

Wake on LAN capability requirement was added;

Compatibility requirements with respect to LAUSDs mobile device


management, web-filtering and wireless network onboarding processes were
added;

BIOS resident or secured from removal tracking software requirement was


added;

The curriculum requirements initially still included that content must be


originally designed using the CCSS and not retrofitted, repurposed, or re-
aligned as an after-thought. However, this requirement was relaxed by the
March 4, 2014, Addendum to RFP #14034 and replaced with a requirement
that the content tightly adhere to the publishers criteria for CCSS.

LAUSD realized that the technical specifications of RFP #14034 were such that no
Chromebook device on the market could satisfy them. In the interest of making
available to schools a greater variety of devices from which to choose in Phase 1L,
on May 1, 2014, LAUSDs Procurement Division issued Request for Proposal No.
14047 (RFP #14047), Common Core Technology Project Chromebook Option. The
schedule for this procurement was established to conform with the ongoing process
for RFP #14034, with the winning Chromebook(s) to simply be added to the devices
from which the schools participating in Phase 1L would be able to choose in June
2014.
For the Chromebook procurement, LAUSD used the revised language regarding
CCSS alignment, providing that content must tightly adhere to the CCSS for
Mathematics and ELA.
LAUSDs selection panels and executive staff concluded that the proposals of Arey
Jones Educational Solutions, Lenovo (United States) Inc., and SHI International Corp.
were responsive to RFP #14034, and recommended that they each be awarded
contracts for laptop devices in support of the CCTP. Similarly, LAUSDs selection
panels and executive staff concluded that the proposals of Arey Jones (Samsung
device) and Rorke Global Solutions, An Avnet Business (Acer device and Dell
devices) were responsive to RFP #14047, and recommended that they each be
awarded contracts for the Chromebook option in support of the CCTP. At its July 1,
2014, Regular Meeting, the Board authorized all such Phase 1L contracts. As a
result, the schools participating in Phase 1L were able to choose from among six
different devices with curriculum from three different providers.
As part of Phase 2 of the CCTP, LAUSD participated in SBACs Field Test assessments
during a testing window from April 1, 2014 to May 16, 2014. For the Field Test,
LAUSD schools used a mixture of Phase 2 iPads and carts and existing computer lab
equipment.

10

II. Process
II.A. Committee Formation
At the Regular Board of Education Meeting held on August 20, 2013, the Board
President, Dr. Richard Vladovic, constituted the Common Core Technology Project
Ad Hoc Committee (the Committee), which he asked Boardmember Mnica Ratliff
to chair. Ms. Ratliff accepted the assignment, immediately gave notice that the
inaugural meeting would be held on August 28, 2013, and asked that Mr. Ronald
Chandler, Chief Information Officer, Information Technology Division, be assigned to
the Committee. All Committee meetings were held as public hearings, in compliance
with applicable law.

II.B. Meetings & Testimony
August 28, 2013

After the Committee Members and external representatives to the Committee (the
External Representatives) introduced themselves, Gerardo Loera, Executive
Director for Curriculum and Instruction, and Ronald Chandler, Chief Information
Officer, delivered a report on the history and implementation of the CCTP to date.

Mr. Loera described the necessity for schools, which were based on an industrial-
age model, to adapt to the information age. He presented slides describing LAUSDs
vision for 21st Century instruction in alignment with the CCSS. Mr. Loera cited key
findings from over 30 demonstration projects, benchmarking surveys and the
results of a national survey of classroom technology initiatives conducted by Project
Revolutionizing Education (Project RED). Among other things, he reported that this
research found:

It was important to empower students and parents to feel a sense of
ownership for the devices;

Schools should seek to provide more families with broadband internet


access, but also provide content that can be accessed off-line;

Schools should ensure leadership and buy-in;

Schools should provide quality professional development (PD) and


opportunities for teachers to share experiences; and

Properly implemented technology can save money (including textbook cost


savings when devices are used as e-readers).

Mr. Loera also discussed the proposed timeline and progress to date. Mr. Loera
noted the importance of students having access to technology to take the SBAC
assessments as the assessments are on-line assessments and center around CCSS

11

which have technological skills and concepts embedded in the standards. Mr.
Chandler reported on the status of the school infrastructure upgrade, and
emphasized that CCTP should not be thought of as a technology product, but rather
as instruction powered by technology. Mr. Chandler was asked to describe how
schools were chosen for the various Phases. Mr. Chandler replied that 29 were
identified by the Office of Civil Rights as having the greatest need of access to
modernized instructional content, 13 are Schools of the future and five were
Proposition 39 charter schools co-located with schools in one of the above
categories.
Mr. Loera was asked about a timeline for the use of e-books and e-textbooks. Mr.
Loera pointed out that the iPads being rolled out to Phase 1 schools came preloaded
with digital curriculum for K through 8 in English and math. He stated that in terms
of e-books and e-Textbooks, the textbook industry was determining how their
models will end up working. He reported that there was some pending legislation
requiring textbook publishers to provide digital versions of their textbooks for
compliance under Williams/Valenzuela-related requirements. Later in the meeting,
the Committee returned to textbook issue. The Committee pointed out that if we
move forward with Phase 2 and 3 and come up with half a billion to a billion dollars
of funding for district-wide implementation, the question becomes do we replace
textbooks and [d]o we commit general funds in the future into this program?
It was asked if there was feedback from the rollout that the public, BOE,
stakeholders and practitioners could see in terms of positives and negatives to date.
Mr. Loera responded that feedback had been received regarding PD held over the
summer and the feedback was extraordinarily high. It was asked if there was
feedback gathered from the schools that were actually implementing the rollout that
could allow schools that have not gone through the rollout could use to learn best
practices. Mr. Loera stated that the feedback LAUSD was getting each step of the
way was overwhelmingly positive.
Boardmember LaMotte asked how Facilities and Instruction were working together
to ensure success and expressed concern that the project might not work without
additional funding. Mr. Loera emphasized that there has been an extraordinary
level of coordination between Facilities, ITD, and Instruction involving a very
coherent plan, weekly project updates and having members from each of the
departments working together. Mr. Chandler confirmed the cooperation between
divisions.
Mr. Chandler briefly discussed LAUSDs internet filtering. He pointed out that
LAUSD had filtering on campus to ensure that inappropriate places were blocked
and LAUSD was getting filtering for off-campus. Mr. Chandler pointed out that all of
these processes had worked out for the most part and LAUSD was going to tweak
the processes.
Mr. Chandler discussed the timeline for Phase 1 and the opportunity to learn

12

throughout Phase 1. He mentioned that in November 2013, LAUSD would return to


the BOC and BOE to ask permission to proceed to Phase 2. If approved, Phase 3 and
a rollout to the rest of the schools would follow Phase 2. Mr. Chandler described the
timeline as a compressed schedule and daunting but emphasized we are putting
things in place to make the schools successful.
Mr. Chandler stated that LAUSD had been planning this for a very long time and
would make sure to learn as the project progressed. He mentioned that from March
2013 through July 2013, LAUSD hired the project team and a lot of planning had
been done before LAUSD had a full team.
Mr. Chandler briefly discussed the procurement process pointing out that ITD had
asked Instruction and Procurement to drive the selection of the device. ITDs role
was to make sure that the device would work in the classroom technology-wise.
Mr. Chandler was asked to come back with the set of metrics that LAUSD would use
to gauge whether Phase 1 was a success. Specifically, it was asked that the
Committee see the assessment metrics that had been previously provided to the
Bond Oversight Committee.
Mr. Loera stated that devices would be required for Common Core testing in 2014-
15, and LAUSD wanted students to have experience testing on them before the tests
were for high stakes. He also touted the benefits of computer adaptive testing
which would enable the test to adapt based on an individual test-takers capabilities
and provide for more real-time assessment of ability and possible remediation
needs. In addition, results would be returned much quicker than paper and pencil
assessments. Mr. Loera stressed the importance of getting devices to students
quickly, so they could become familiar with the devices before they would have to
take tests on them. It was asked whether LAUSD would be able to compare the test
results of pilot students with non-pilot students to see the effects of extra familiarity
with the devices. Mr. Loera reported that LAUSD would not be getting any data back
from the 2014 Field Test. Mr. Loera stated that Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium was creating the annual summative assessment to be used in California
and interim assessments that would be available for use in 2014/2015. Teachers
would be able to use the interim assessments but would retain the freedom to
develop their own assessments. Mr. Loera mentioned that when new measures are
rolled out, there is what is commonly referred to as an Implementation Dip which
means that before things actually get better, they may actually get worse for a short
time and then ultimately have to improve after that. He was not able to answer
how the Smarter Balanced test results would impact teacher evaluations in 2015
and beyond. The Committee requested more information about the Smarter
Balanced concept and how LAUSD planned to bridge the assessment gap between
CST and SBAC assessments in 2015.
Mr. Chandler described the technical support plan for teachers and students. He
explained that LAUSD planned to build in a remote kill feature that would disable

13

devices if lost or stolen, as well as create a publicity campaign to educate the public
that the iPads were useless if stolen.
It was asked that the Committee see the actual safety and security protocols and any
forms students or their guardians were being asked to sign.
Mr. Chandler reported that LAUSD was upgrading infrastructure in order to
accommodate every student being online at the same time. However, the decision
whether to have all students take the SBAC assessments simultaneously would
await further testing and analysis. Mr. Chandler also stated that by late August 2014
all schools would be upgraded. He pointed out that this is one of the largest
technology projects in the country at the time.
Mr. Chandler discussed some FAQs around keyboards. He stated that LAUSD had
decided not to provision keyboards but had worked with procurement to make sure
that there was a vehicle to purchase keyboards and was planning on purchasing
keyboards later on. He reported that Smarter Balanced had stated that mechanical
keyboards were recommended but not required if there was an alternative way to
input into the test.
Mr. Chandler advised that tablets would start going home with students on a school-
by-school basis, after the appropriate preparations had been completed. LAUSD
was developing informational videos on device safety, however no students had
seen the videos yet. The Committee saw a brief portion of a video developed by
LAUSD, and the Chair requested that more of the video be shown in the future. It
was recommended that schools be able to participate in some sort of PSA creation
campaign as some students have created exceptional videos.
The Committee then raised a number of issues it wanted to discuss at future
meetings, including:

Timeline and methods for preparing parents;

Security plans for classrooms, if a school decided not to send devices home;

Power and other associated costs with operating devices at schools;

Whether classified staff would be trained, too;

LAUSDs communication strategy; and

LAUSDs plan for funding CCTP two or three years down the road, when the
iPads may be obsolete, lost and/or broken.

The Committee heard from a couple speakers including Ms. Araceli Sandoval
Gonzalez, the Director of School and Community Engagement for Early Edge
California. Ms. Gonzalez wanted to know if students in transitional kindergarten

14

were included in the plan to distribute iPads. An External Representative


recommended that the Committee address how LAUSD was intentionally linking
Common Core preparation with early childhood education to ensure academic
success by third grade.
September 25, 2013

The meeting began with a repetition of the purpose of the Committee in providing a
forum for people to ask questions and, ultimately, to have them answered by
various LAUSD representatives.
The Committee heard telephonic testimony from Dr. Stanley Rabinowitz, Smarter
Balanced Project Management Partner at WestEd regarding SBAC. In introducing
Dr. Rabinowitz, Mr. Loera described Smarter Balanced as one of two nationwide
consortia developing next generation assessments which:

Used adaptive technology that claimed to be more precise, efficient, and


motivating than fixed-form testing;

Included short- and extended- constructed responses which allowed in-


depth demonstration of analytical skill and real world problem-solving; and

Provided rapid results.

Dr. Rabinowitz explained that the impetus for the new assessment was threefold:
(1) to satisfy the need for new assessments based on the CCSS; (2) to provided
better support throughout the school year to schools by providing additional
formative and interim assessments; and (3) because the federal grant that was part
of the race-to-the top program provided significant federal resources that states
could apply for and use as part of [the] consortium for development of this next
generation assessment system maintaining control at the state level with this
federal seed money.
Dr. Rabinowitz described how the SBAC assessment questions included computer
enhanced and other purported improvements on traditional test question formats.
A number of questions were asked about the computer adaptive aspect of the
assessments. Dr. Rabinowitz explained that, although different students received
different questions, the tests were fair. Moreover, the assessments were more
efficient and less time-consuming, since they measured the full depth and breadth of
the Common Core. Mr. Loera explained that students would be interacting with the
technology via a Technology Enhanced Platform which would require students to
answer questions by highlighting, dragging, and dropping text and answers, among
other things. Dr. Rabinowitz mentioned that these computer enhanced items
might involve students drawing an angle versus simply recognizing an angle. Mr.
Loera was asked to bring to the next meeting some examples of non-multiple choice
performance assessment questions from various grade levels of Math and ELA. Dr.
Rabinowitz clarified that the concept of grade-level did not strictly apply to test

15

questions, but the Committee could see examples of elementary, middle and high
school questions.
It was asked when states would be expected to move to a fully computerized test
versus a paper-and-pencil test. Dr. Rabinowitz explained that paper and pencil
versions would be available for three years (through the 2016-17 school year), but
that they were not as precise and would not return results as promptly as a fully
computerized administration. Dr. Rabinowitz asserted that the CCSS created a need
for a different kind of assessment, and that the interim paper and pencil versions
would only return scores of Proficient or Not Proficient. Mr. Loera mentioned that
the SBAC involves a number of different States and California will set additional
guidelines and parameters for school districts to follow. Mr. Loera was asked about
assessments for the new CCSS science standards and social studies standards. He
stated that the assessments being developed were specifically for English Language
Arts and Mathematics and mentioned that LAUSD was engaged in having people
from the other disciplines engaged in creating assessments for use as a tool and
resource for teachers. Dr. Rabinowitz explained that it would be up to states either
individually or as parts of consortia or for the testing industry to develop Next
Generation Science Assessments. It was asked why Grades K-2 were not included in
the SBAC assessments, and Dr. Rabinowitz explained that they had not yet been
awarded any federal funding to develop assessments for those grades. However,
upon questioning, Dr. Rabinowitz added that their digital library would include
supports for kindergarten and the early grades to help teachers. Mr. Loera was
asked what LAUSDs plans were for summative assessments of Grades 9 and 10, for
which SBAC also did not have summative assessments. Mr. Loera stated that LAUSD
would use SBACs interim assessments in Grades 9 and 10.
Dr. Rabinowitz explained that Smarter Balanced was indifferent as to any interim
assessments schools may use. SBACs summative assessments would be given in a
12 week window at the end of the school year, but individual States could choose to
shorten this period. Dr. Rabinowitz was asked about feedback from the 50 LAUSD
schools that had taken SBACs pilot test in the 2012-13 school year. Mr. Loera stated
that LAUSD would not receive any assessment results from either the pilot test or
the 2014 Field Test. He asserted that there was, nonetheless, a benefit to LAUSD
students, teachers and administrators participating in the pilot and Field Test
phases in that they would get to practice with the new assessments before they
really counted.
It was asked how districts that did not have one-to-one devices planned to take the
SBAC assessments. Dr. Rabinowitz explained that a school would not need one-to-
one computers for these assessments, rather computers could be shared
(consecutively, not simultaneously) in a computer lab or even a regular classroom.
Moreover, Dr. Rabinowitz explained that districts should not necessarily limit their
thinking about computers to laptops, since SBAC was working out deals with Apple
and other tablet makers to administer the tests on tablets. More information was
requested for the next meeting regarding sharing of devices during assessments.

16

Questions were asked about the participation of other districts in the pilot tests. Dr.
Rabinowitz explained that, of the 600,000 students who participated, LAUSDs 50
schools were the largest group from any one district. There were no results from
the pilot at the school or district levels. Nor would there be such data from the 2014
Field Test, although States would be provided a data file of all their districts so they
could do some analyses if they chose. Mr. Rabinowitz stated that some surveying
was done in connection with how the technology and items on the test performed
not how the students performed on the test.
Next, Mr. Chandler gave the Committee an update on the implementation of Phase 1
to date, tablet durability and their estimated three-year useful life.
Mr. Loera reported potential cost savings from textbooks and paperwork reduction,
citing a Project RED finding that suggested properly implemented technology could
save money and showing a number of slides describing LAUSDs integrated digital
library & textbook support services (iLTSS), free e-textbooks and e-encyclopedia.
There were some noteworthy points in the September 23, 2013 FAQ from LAUSDs
Joint CCTP Communications Strategy that were presented to the meeting, including:

Why do the devices cost more than the prices I see in the stores?; and

How will the District sustain the cost of this program?

In response to the question about devices apparently being cheaper at retail, the
FAQ explained that the per-unit cost included digital curriculum, security features,
protective covers and PD, but did not provide any comparable pricing for these
added features (nor did the FAQ mention the extended warranty also included in the
per-unit price). As for the long-term funding plans, the FAQ stated that the bond
funds were used for the initial transformation, but that LAUSD would sustain the use
in future years the same way it was currently paying for textbooks. However,
LAUSD had not historically been replacing $600-700 million plus of textbooks every
three years.
The Committee raised the recently publicized case of iPads going home with the
students and hundreds of students hacking their iPads to disable LAUSDs Mobile
Device Management system and defeat LAUSDs filtering system. The Chair asked
who had made the decision to send the iPads home in light of her understanding and
the understanding of the BOC that devices were going to go home eventually but
were not going to go home yet. Mr. Chandler replied that he would need to come
back to the Committee on the sequence of decisions but he believed the plan had
been to make it a local decision determined by the Principal. The Committee
expressed concern regarding liability if parents complained about students
accessing something that was inappropriate and asserting that LAUSD was
responsible for giving the device to the student. Mr. Chandler reported that LAUSD
could address the defeat of LAUSDs filtering system through security and, more

17

importantly, by teaching good digital citizenship. He further reassured the


Committee that LAUSD was aware of the incident (and where each affected device
was physically located) within seconds after the students had taken control of the
devices. The Principals were promptly informed, and the Superintendent issued an
order that the devices must not be allowed to leave campus. It was asked whether
parents could be notified as well when a device has gone around LAUSDs system.
Mr. Chandler replied that the potential exists but it was a policy question. He added
that, since the disabling of LAUSDs Mobile Device Management system and defeat of
LAUSDs filtering system, LAUSD had been adjusting the technical controls and
opened a dialogue with students and the greater community. Mr. Chandler noted
that the web filtering initially rolled out may have been overly restrictive (for
example, two of the students most popular web destinations, YouTube and
Facebook, were blocked) and that could have contributed to the students
motivation to circumvent the controls.
Mr. Loera asserted that, although the devices could be used as e-readers to reduce
some other library and textbook costs, it was unclear how the textbook market
would play out as far as digitization. Mr. Loera mentioned that current pricing
structures for switching to e-textbooks made the switch cost-prohibitive.
Furthermore, Mr. Loera stated that LAUSD did not want to merely replace books
with e-books, but was seeking a fully interactive electronic curriculum for the 21st
Century.
It was asked that the Committee receive a future presentation on the long term plan
for purchasing new devices when the devices become obsolete or break. It was
asked how the projected replacement costs compared to LAUSDs historical
spending on textbooks. Mr. Loera stated that LAUSD spent about $25-30 million per
year to maintain and replace, and that LAUSD held a textbook inventory of
approximately $300 million. The Committee requested that Mr. Loera return with
more detailed information regarding projected iPad obsolescence and replacement
plans, and LAUSDs current textbook, calculator and other costs which would be
made unnecessary by the devices.
Dr. Cynthia Lim, Executive Director, Office of Data & Accountability, then gave a
report on LAUSDs planned evaluation of Phase 1. Dr. Lim explained that the
evaluation would be organized around three components:

Infrastructure was it sufficient for Phases 1, 2, 3, and what made for


smoother rollouts?;

Devices how much PD was needed and how comfortable were teachers and
principals in using the devices in Phase 1?; and

Instruction/Curricular content How did technology affect individualization,


collaboration and parent engagement?

18

Dr. Lim mentioned that her division had come up with an exhaustive list of
questions that they would forward to the Committee. She also stated that LAUSD
would probably embed some questions about the project in the School Experience
Survey, which would be done in April 2014. She pointed out that LAUSD could
compare the survey results for schools that have the devices versus schools without
devices and hopefully see that students will be more motivated or report higher
engagement. In addition, LAUSD would be collecting student achievement outcomes
and would be looking at attendance and suspensions. Dr. Lim reported that the big
summative question would be what impact did CCTP have on student learning and
achievement (as well as conduct and behavior).
It was asked what feedback Dr. Lim realistically expected to gain before the Bond
Oversight Committee was to meet in October 2013 to consider Phase 2, since iPads
still had not been deployed to about 20 Phase 1 schools and student achievement
data certainly would not be available yet.
The Chair asked Mr. Chandler whether the Committee (and the Curriculum,
Instruction and Assessments Committee, as well) could be able to review the actual
Pearson curriculum on any iPads that were not needed for the students.
Mr. Chandler then reported on plans to change the culture through public fora on
KLCS and public service announcements around safety and security, as well as
publishing FAQs, all in multiple languages. Mr. Chandler mentioned that there was a
Safety and Security Subcommittee. He added the there was a desire to create a
high-risk/low reward environment in which someone who should not have a
LAUSD iPad would feel it was very risky to have it in their possession and that the
value of such iPad in their possession was much lower than the risk. It was asked
whether schools all had safe places to store devices and requested that Lieutenant
Jose Santome present to the Committee at a later date. Mr. Chandler described plans
to instruct students in what was required of them with respect to devices. It was
asked what would the consequences be on any progressive discipline matrix
noting that, if the iPad were to become equivalent to a textbook at some point, then
LAUSD could not really threaten to take it away. The Chair stated that the
Committee would like to take a look at the Progressive Discipline Plan that was
being devised.
Mr. Chandler was asked about LAUSDs proposed Parent Acknowledgement Form
and liability for damages to devices, expressing concern that different versions of
the form were being distributed at different schools sites and that the form may
contrary to LAUSDs stated goal create legal liability, whether or not LAUSD would
choose to enforce it. The Committee emphasized that parent meetings were really
crucial to provide explanations and trainings to parents. The Committee pointed
out that the Spanish version of the form needed a number of corrections and a
concern was brought up that LAUSD was relying too heavily on Google translation
and outside entities versus LAUSDs translation department. Boardmember

19

LaMotte suggested that parents or students be included in the writing of the


materials so that children and parents could understand it.
As the Committee wanted to discuss a number of other parent-related matters12, the
Chair determined to devote an hour at the next meeting entirely to parents. Mr.
Loera had mentioned early in the meeting that parent materials explaining what
teachers would be doing differently in regards to the new standards were available
on ccss.lausd.net.
The Committee emphasized the importance of training and integrating classified
staff to support students and parents in the use of the technology.
A number of additional questions, including questions submitted on-line, were
procurement-related including a question as to why was LAUSD spending such a
lofty premium for iPad devices when there are alternatives with much lower costs
and general functionality, and would be asked at a future meeting to which
Procurement officers were invited.
The Committee heard public comment that included a comment from Ms. Sara Roos,
a parent, who referenced an incident in Las Vegas in which a 15 year old was killed
during a theft of a non-school-issued iPad.
October 22, 2013

The Chair welcomed the audience and thanked the LAUSD staff who had worked so
hard putting together the presentations. She mentioned to the audience that there
were index cards available to allow for questions during the meeting.
Mr. Hugh Tucker, Deputy Director, Facilities Contracts, reviewed the process to
select Apple products for the Common Core Technology Project. He said the process
had three steps. The first was the planning step using the Public Contracting Code
that identifies the best value. The second step was the Request for Proposals
(RFP) process. The minimum qualifications and scoring criteria were identified in
the RFP. The third step was an evaluation by a panel of the proposals received in
response to the RFP.
Mr. Tucker explained that LAUSD needed criteria to put together for the selection.
LAUSD looked at an RFP created by the state of Maine. Mr. Tucker stated that the
Maine RFP was not identical to LAUSDs RFP because it involved five other states
and some of the states were asking for laptops and some were asking to build
infrastructure. Procurement also incorporated general conditions that LAUSD had
used in the past for computer-type equipment procurements. Mr. Tucker stated
that, as LAUSD was creating scoring criteria, LAUSD needed experts in the field from

12 For example, how parents who may not be technologically savvy can support their childrens

learning with the devices and the roles and responsibilities of parents overseeing their childrens
appropriate use of the devices.

20

different areas such as the hardware, software, curriculum, SBE, warranties,


security, and training. Procurement went to the various departments and
communicated with managers and directors who determined which staff members
had the expertise and scheduling availability. That group of people created the
scope of work that would fit for the scoring criteria and the draft RFP was created.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Tucker stated that the experts in the field who had created
the various criteria were the same people who were on the selection panel and
would do the evaluations. Procurement then held an industry forum that was
slightly different than the normal RFP process. Procurement learned from the
forum that LAUSD would be able to obtain the number of devices that LAUSD
needed within LAUSDs time frame.
Mr. Tucker reported that LAUSD received 13 proposals, including one featuring a
netbook device. However, only tablets (ten devices, with five different curricula)
met the minimum requirements. Demonstration devices were requested from
vendors, and the evaluation panel scored the demonstration devices. Evaluators
looked at questions such as: does the device do what is advertised in the proposal?;
and does it perform as the vendor said it would? The Apple and HP Elite devices
were also taken out to three schools to be used by students and teachers, but
because the number of sample devices was so small it was not a good sample that
could be scored. Mr. Tucker asserted that, after the initial scoring, there was a
natural break at 70 points, with three proposals above and the rest below. Those
three, all with Pearson curriculum and all with some element of touch based activity,
moved on to a non-scoring interview. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the two non-
Apple firms included as part of their proposals an option for keyboards but it was
not a requirement and it was not scored. Each of these three firms submitted its
best and final offer (BAFO) and was then reevaluated.13 Upon the final evaluation,
Apple was chosen as the highest scoring and lowest priced.
It was asked whether the Board was presented the proposal and contract for
approval and if the Board really looked at it. Mr. Tucker replied that Procurement
staff and the evaluators looked at it in depth, Procurement did presentations to the
Executive Group a number of times, the Executive Group accepted the evaluation
panels recommendation, and he hoped that the Board reviewed the proposal.
It was asked how decisive the Pearson content was in narrowing down the finalists,
and Mr. Tucker reported that it was a factor since Pearson scored the highest of the
five curricula received.
An External Representative related anecdotal evidence gathered by the Bond
Oversight Committee that, while tablets may have been great for young students,
better software for older students was available on laptops. It was asked whether

13 However, as evidenced by the summary score sheet presented to the Committee at its November

19, 2013 meeting (and included in Appendix A17 hereto), the highest scoring initial proposal (Arey
Jones B, featuring a Dell Latitude 10 tablet and Pearson curriculum) never had its BAFO scored.

21

the requirement of a 10-inch multi-touch display capable of operating with a


stylus might have ruled out laptops and netbooks. Mr. Chandler replied that there
are laptops that can have a functional stylus and touch screens. Mr. Tucker stated
that no netbook or laptop with those capabilities, in fact, proposed. Mr. Tucker
acknowledged that the Chair was asking whether certain criteria may have
eliminated other devices. The Chair pointed out that the criteria mentioned the
multi-touch display, Bluetooth capabilities, eight-hour batteries, video mirroring,
and a physical keyboard of sufficient size and ease for students and teachers to be
able to do their work effectively and efficiently without discomfort. The Chair
asked where the specifications came from. Mr. Tucker advised that the
specifications were created by the Information Technology Division, and Mr.
Chandler added that they did so under advisement from Smarter Balanced, and that
the Information Technology Division felt like there were laptop or netbook devices
that could have proposed which met the specifications, but for whatever reason did
not.
Keyboards were discussed again briefly and a slide was presented that stated that
[p]rices for keyboards were included as an optional item in responses to the
request for proposal. The slide also stated that [t]he District will make a decision
about keyboard purchases before implementing online assessments in the 2014-
2015 year. In addition, a separate RFP or IFB would be issued, and the final
purchasing decision would be made by the Executive Sponsors. Upon request for
clarification, Mr. Tucker explained that the Executive Panel was made up of Mr.
Chandler, Mr. Matt Hill, and Mr. Jaime Aquino.
In response to an audience question, Mr. Tucker said that Apple is the entity that
selected Pearson as the curriculum provider, and that LAUSD had nothing to do with
the selection of subcontractors such as Pearson. There were several questions
related to why Apple was allowed to make the curricular choice and not LAUSDs
instructional staff. Mr. Tucker pointed out that Apple was trying to make a sale and
would try to find what they thought was the best subcontractor. Mr. Loera
mentioned that LAUSD engaged in the evaluation of the Apple-Pearson proposal
that included both the content and the device.
Mr. Tucker said that he did not expect for an additional procurement process to take
place after Phase 1.
He said that the names of those on the evaluation panel, also referred to as the
election committee, had been provided to the Board, but would only be further
released through a Public Records Act Request, in order to protect them from
influence and questioning. Mr. Tucker clarified that the evaluation committee
members were not necessarily the same people who evaluated the software and
hardware.
Mr. Tucker was asked why LAUSD was buying the iPad 3, at a time when Apple was
selling the iPad 5, and Mr. Tucker responded LAUSD had contracted solely for the

22

iPad 3.14 He added that LAUSD could negotiate for newer devices, but the price
LAUSD was offered was based on this version.
In response to the Committees questions regarding the selection process, Mr.
Tucker stated that Dr. Aquino had no influence in choosing Pearson. He said that
the selection panels scored Apple the highest, the Executive Committee just
approved to move from one step to the next and never had anything rescored or
changed. Mr. Tucker also stated that he had no knowledge of any LAUSD decision-
maker having an interest in Pearson, and that he would not say anybody influenced
the selection process. A question from the audience specifically asked whether or
not Dr. Deasys appearance in an Apple commercial before the provider was chosen
biased the Apple choice. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Hovatter added that he was the one
that personally briefed Dr. Deasy once the process was done. Mr. Hovatter stated
that Dr. Deasy had no idea which vendor was selected until after it was submitted to
the Board and Mr. Hovatter had accepted the recommendation. Mr. Hovatter stated
that Dr. Deasy did not even know who had proposed.
The Committee requested the scoring criteria and results from each of the
proposals, since they would be available through a Public Records Act Request.
Mr. Hovatter was asked why LAUSD was paying for co-located Charters to receive
iPads under Proposition 39, and he replied that it was because they were
considered facilities, just like a leaky roof.
It was asked why the buffer pool was so small, and Mr. Chandler responded that
studies showed breakage rates of only 1-3%. Mr. Chandler committed to respond to
the Committee at a later date regarding actual repair costs, status of curriculum
already loaded onto LAUSD devices after the three-year contract expires and device
battery life.
Mr. Loera began his presentation showing that the Phase 1 rollout of the project
would be completed shortly. Forty schools had received 23,347 iPads with the
curriculum that was then ready. The last five schools would soon receive their
devices. He said that the iPads could access LAUSDs library of reference materials
from home. He reported that Pearson had only provided selected drop-in lessons,
one or two units per grade (and only Grades K-8) in ELA and math, but the full
second semester curriculum would be available from Pearson in January 2014. It
was asked whether the procurement process included requirements as far as what
would be ready when, and whether proposers promised how much to deliver when.
Mr. Chandler replied that Procurement would have to answer, but he believed all
providers were going to have to do some sort of build-in.

14 Mr. Chandler corrected this later in the meeting LAUSD procured the iPad 4 with Retina display

and Mr. Tucker remarked that one or two years into any contract there would be a better version
that LAUSD might want but would have to pay for.

23

Mr. Loera was asked whether students could access curriculum above their grade
level. Mr. Loera stated that it was possible but it would depend on what curriculum
was loaded on the device. He reiterated that storage limitations would prevent all
curriculum for every grade level from being loaded on the devices. Later, it was
asked that LAUSD consider allowing students to have access to their grade levels
curriculum and the curriculum one grade-level above and below. Mr. Loera
responded that those kinds of things would need to be determined on a case-by-case
basis, based on the limitations of the device and the student needs. Upon further
questioning of how case-by-case augmentations would be paid for, Mr. Loera
mentioned that additional open source content was available.
Mr. Loera was asked how parents of an English Learner would know which apps
would be suited for their childs needs. Mr. Loera suggested that Pearson does
provide some supports for English Learners but LAUSD would continue to expand
on that, and Pearson was also continuing to build supports into their subsequent
curriculum. Mr. Loera explained that, so far, LAUSD was just receiving the default
CCSS curriculum and, in fact, there were no fully formed units for Phase 1, just a
limited number of drop-in grade K-8 lessons. For example, a high school math
teacher who stated that her device lacked content would be correct, as it was not
part of the Phase 1 plan. Later, when questioning continued on the expected timing
for the Pearson content to be complete, Mr. Loera deferred to Procurement.
Questions were asked about LAUSDs plan to load textbooks onto the device. Mr.
Loera stated that, when the RFP was distributed, LAUSD was not interested in
simply replacing the traditional hard paper textbook with a .pdf. He explained that
the .pdf is a static page that does not provide additional benefits to the student.
LAUSD wanted the technology to be interactive. The Committee followed up by
asking if LAUSD had researched textbook companies to see if there are interactive
textbooks that would be available to LAUSD. Mr. Loera answered that the process
involved putting out the RFP and proposers submitted their proposals based on the
RFP. He mentioned that LAUSD was continuing to look at what other possibilities
and opportunities exist in the long term in terms of digital books.
Mr. Loera was asked what high school students would be using open source
content or textbooks in light of the lack of Pearson high school curriculum. Mr.
Loera explained that LAUSD has been engaged for several years in the transition to
the Common Core: K, 1st, 6th, and 9th grades began transitioning in 2012-2013; and
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th grades were transitioning in 2013-2014. Mr.
Loera stated that, at the secondary level, LAUSD staff was participating in realigning
and redoing what needed to be done instructionally to start teaching and learning
with the CCSS.
The Committee pointed out that LAUSD had a variety of magnet programs that
would benefit from specialized curriculum and asked if devices would be restricted
to Pearson curriculum. Mr. Loera responded that the Pearson curriculum is the

24

default, but LAUSD would need to come up with additional strategies to augment it
based on student need.
The Committee inquired about Wi-Fi availability at students homes and whether
LAUSD was doing anything to support increased Wi-Fi availability. Mr. Loera
confirmed that LAUSD was not providing internet service at home, but asserted that
the purchased software did not depend on it, since materials could be downloaded
at school and then worked on off-line at home. Mr. Chandler added that the City was
discussing citywide wireless, and LAUSD was part of that effort. The Committee
pointed out that LAUSD would be well served to gather information about the status
of Wi-Fi in areas served by LAUSD outside of the City of Los Angeles, as well. The
Chair announced that the Committee would take up wireless plans for the region at
a future meeting.
It was asked whether schools would be able to choose their own apps or opt out of
the iPads. Mr. Loera replied that schools could augment the technology with
additional apps, provided that they were properly vetted, but schools would not be
able to opt out of the iPads with Pearson. In response to Committee questions, Mr.
Loera explained that parents may opt out of their student bringing the iPad home,
but may not opt out of their student using the iPad at school.
It was asked how cumbersome the app-approval process would be for teachers, and
Mr. Loera committed to research and advise. The Chair expressed concern that the
approval processes around the technology could actually delay implementation of
useful materials in schools, since as it stood then, teachers could simply buy
educational materials and hand them out. The Chair requested that Mr. Loera come
to the next meeting prepared to answer how much curriculum Pearson had
delivered and when it would deliver the rest, with references to any controlling
language in the contract.
Mr. Loera also said that textbooks remained the instructional material that the State
recognized. He said the Pearson curriculum did not replace textbooks yet, since it
had not been adopted by the State, and therefore LAUSD would need to continue to
purchase textbooks. The Chair announced that the Committee would schedule a
discussion about textbook replacement for a future meeting.
Mr. Loera said he would have to reply later as to whether Pearson would slow down
their curriculum development if LAUSD were to delay the program. He said he
would bring information regarding the Pearson curriculum development forward at
a later time. He also said he would later provide a list of the approved applications
that were already available on the iPads. Ms. Bernadette Lucas, CCTP Project
Director, reported to the Committee that some schools had asked for additional
applications and they had already been provided. Mr. Loera said that additional
tools for teaching the English Language Learner (ELL) would be built into the
curriculum for Phase 2 and Phase 3. He said that the funding for additional

25

applications would have to be determined and that he would report on this in the
future.
Mr. Loera continued his presentation by discussing the PD that occurred over the
summer. He reviewed the amount of training that each teacher received. Mr. Loera
explained that Apple and Pearson were doing the initial three days of training, but
that LAUSD was responsible for further training. In response to the Committees
question, Mr. Loera affirmed that teachers had been evaluating the quality of the PD
being provided to them. The Chair announced that her office was working with the
United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) and the Associated Administrators of Los
Angeles (AALA) to survey teachers and administrators who were part of Phase 1,
and asked for LAUSD to also present its survey results to the Committee.
Mr. Chandler displayed an illustration of the governance model of the project that
indicated key responsibilities but omitted names. It was explained that Ms. Lucas is
the project director and there is a project steering committee that oversees the
day-to-day of the project. Mr. Chandler reported that devices were not going
home at the moment. It was asked how the decision was made for them to go home
before, and he stated that the decision was approved by the Executive Sponsors
after consultation with legal. Mr. Chandler said he would provide the names of the
Executive Sponsors in the future.15
Next, Lieutenant Santome of the Los Angeles School Police (LASPD) delivered a
presentation to the Committee on LAUSDs 4-point safety strategy plan, comprised
of:

Cyber safety (CIPA compliance & digital citizenship);

Community Outreach;

Technology Innovation Application (Lock-it/Freeze-it/Track-it); and

Law Enforcement Working Group to create a high-risk/low-reward


environment.

Two questions submitted by the public asked how students in possession of iPads
would be protected. Lt. Santome said one of the main strategies to protect students
was to make the device worthless to others. He also expressed his hopes to have
high profile prosecutions of those who obtain the devices illegally. The goal was for
the devices to have low value and high risk. Lt. Santome reported that of the 24,000
iPads deployed to date, only six had been stolen (of which, one was recovered), and
none had been lost. It was asked whether LASPD was able to track the devices, and
Lt. Santome replied yes, but that there were certain operational strategies and

15 Mr. Tucker had named the Executive Sponsors as Mr. Chandler, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Aquino at the

same October 22, 2013 CCTP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting.

26

tactical capabilities that he could not discuss in that forum. The Committee then
asked for confirmation that LASPD was tracking the missing ones, to which Lt.
Santome replied that they were not, because the device must be on, with battery
charged and receiving Wi-Fi. Lt. Santome also described LASPD efforts to
coordinate with other safety agencies including involvement in the Law
Enforcement Working Group. He reported that future cooperation would include
scripts to allow representatives from partner agencies to go to a school and do a
parent presentation. Lt. Santome mentioned that, at one rollout, the local LAPD
division offered to assist and sent 12 police officers to visit classrooms and do safety
presentations.
Mr. Chandler said he would bring information regarding bullying and the Acceptable
Use Policy in the future.
Lt. Santome discussed the summer storage plan and the steps that were being taken
to minimize inventory loss and damage.
The Chair asked that staff prepare to discuss at a future meeting LAUSDs plans for
digital citizenship and training on what to do with devices during after-school
activities and other times when students were at school but would not actually be
using the iPads.
Next, the Committee moved into a discussion of parent responsibility and training,
as announced at its September 25, 2013 meeting. Ms. Lucas reported that there was
a new Parent/Student Acknowledgment Form, as of October 21, 2013, which stated
that the parent or guardian of any minor who willfully cuts, defaces, or otherwise
injures any real or personal property of LAUSD or its employees, or fails to return
same upon demand of LAUSD, shall be liable for all damages caused by the minor.
It was asked whether the device would be allowed to go home if a student did not
return a signed Acknowledgment Form. Ms. Lucas reported that LAUSD allowed the
devices to go home anyway. Ms. Lucas said that parents were not liable for theft or
loss of the device. The Chair noted that the Parent Acknowledgement Form, dated
October 22, 2013, still said the parent was liable under the Education Code for
damage caused by the student, and that she was concerned LAUSD was telling
parents they were not liable, but putting in writing that they were. Mr. Chandler
said he would review the language of the form with LAUSDs Office of General
Counsel to ensure the intent described by Ms. Lucas was clear. Ms. Lucas also
mentioned that the return rate of the acknowledgment form varied from school to
school with the lowest reported rate being in the low 80s and the highest return
rate being 99 percent. Ms. Lucas offered to get information for the Committee
clarifying what schools that enjoyed a high return rate of the form had done
differently than schools with a lower return rate.
The Chair asked Ms. Lucas to elaborate at the next meeting on how LAUSD planned
to provide hard copies of instructional materials to students whose parents declined
to allow the device to go home.

27

Ms. Lucas emphasized that the parent education piece is crucial and stated that
LAUSD was encouraging local schools to provide parent education regarding
devices, to conduct needs assessments for parents to target professional
development to the local need, and to enlist students to facilitate parent education
after school. The Chair noted that some parents might want training directly from
LAUSD, among other things, with respect to keeping track of what their students
were doing with the devices. Ms. Lucas mentioned that the parent education piece,
including the needs assessment, was under development and would be brought
before a future Committee meeting. She also stated that the local school site had
decision-making authority about embedding education regarding the technology in
the schools parent education plan but that it is a LAUSD expectation. It was asked
whether a parent could download an app that tracks the devices usage and
suggested that parents may be interested in having information on how their child is
using the device. Mr. Chandler committed to do some research and get back to the
Committee on that question.
Ms. Lucas gave a brief description of the plan to enhance the learning opportunities
for young learners including the use of highly effective apps.
Ms. Lucas also briefly discussed how the CCTP team was convening a task force and
developing a Progressive Discipline Plan around the technology integration. The
Chair expressed concern that Progressive Discipline matrix was currently non-
existent in light of the recent hacking event and previous information provided to
the Board stating that the matrix had been created. The Chair stated that the
original question about progressive discipline related to LAUSDs plan for students
who violate the Acceptable Use Policy. The Chair also noted that the Board
Informative from Matt Hill, Chief Strategy Officer, and Mr. Chandler, dated
September 24, 2013, stated that a universal set of progressive disciplinary actions
has been developed for students that remove M.D.M. and violate the acceptable use
policy. The Committee requested to see that discipline matrix, even if a new one
was currently under development.
The Committee pointed out the need to examine best practices to meet the needs of
ELLs in light of data that suggests that LAUSD has an extraordinarily high
percentage of ELLs concentrated in grades kindergarten through third.
A public speaker questioned whether teachers were teaching with books or iPads,
ostensibly in light of the lack of a complete Pearson curriculum being available on
the iPad. Several public speakers questioned the safety of wireless technology.
November 19, 2013

Several public speakers were heard at the beginning of the meeting. One speaker,
Mr. Urrutia, questioned why LAUSD would negotiate a contract in which years into
the contract, LAUSD would get the same device model that was provided in the first
year. He also questioned how teachers could comment on the full Pearson

28

curriculum if it was not available. Finally, he commented that the data stream
produced by the iPad usage would be available to the vendor.
Mr. David Lyell, Secretary, UTLA, presented the results of a survey conducted by
UTLA at the 47 schools participating in Phase 1 of the CCTP. He said there were 265
respondents out of 750 teachers receiving the link. 63% said they did not receive
adequate training. Mr. Lyell said one of the key points in the comments from those
surveyed was that the Common Core lessons on the iPads were not complete and
did not align with CCSS. Teachers wondered how they could be held accountable for
subjects where there was no prepared curriculum. Also comments indicated that
the teacher training should be tiered, to better align with the actual technological
literacy of each teacher. Mr. Lyell reported that 45% of respondents were
dissatisfied with the Pearson training and said more PD was needed. Even after
upwards of 20 hours of training, 81% of teachers surveyed did not agree that LAUSD
provided adequate training. Mr. Lyell reviewed many other comments and findings
from the UTLA survey.
Mr. Lyell responded to questions and comments from the Committee. He said that
UTLA decided not to make any conclusions as a result of the survey but to let the
comments section speak for itself. He also said UTLA was left out of the
development of the training and did not want to comment on the quality of the
training.
Mr. Hill said LAUSD was trying to get feedback on the program using multiple
methods, and that there had been and would continue to be surveys, including the
annual School Experience Survey, focus groups, and input from virtual learning
facilitators that work with lead teachers and staff at schools. The Committee
discussed the issue of how to increase voluntary participation in LAUSD surveys and
the quick turn-around required in completing the UTLA survey.
The Chair reported that the Committee also received survey results from a survey
conducted by AALA, but since representatives from AALA were not present, the
Committee would review those at a future meeting.
Next, Mr. Tucker addressed six questions raised at the prior meeting. He said
LAUSD would need to purchase licenses after the three-year contract expires in
order to continue to have access to the Pearson content, but that any updates to the
content during the three-year period would be delivered to LAUSD at no additional
cost. The Chair stated that she was originally told the content would be available for
the life of the device. She asked for more certainty from LAUSD staff, and Mr. Hill
confirmed that the content would not be available when the contract expires.
Mr. Hill was asked what the price would be for the content if it were purchased after
the three-year term expires. Mr. Hill said that, while he could not know exactly,
based on his review of the market, prices for electronic curriculum were running
about $25 to $50 per subject per year. He said in three years LAUSD would do an

29

RFP for content and that he believed that the cost would decrease over time. He
said LAUSD would be able to purchase new content in the future using funds
historically allocated to textbooks (which had averaged approximately $60 million a
year). Mr. Hill said that $30-50 million was spent annually just for the replacement
of lost and damaged textbooks and that LAUSD also had to buy new versions when
there were adoptions by the state. The Committee noted that, even at the low end of
Mr. Hills estimate, $25 per year for software would be more than $75 for a textbook
that lasts seven years. Mr. Hill remarked that $25 to $50 was the retail market rate
and expressed optimism that LAUSD would be able to command a substantial
volume discount, like it did on the iPads.
It was asked whether this RFP was unusual, and Mr. Tucker said that the
procurement process was routine. He said the scoring matrix used to pick the
vendor was distributed to the Committee following the last meeting. He said there
were 13 proposals using 6 different providers of curriculum. Upon questioning
about vendors and curriculum, Mr. Tucker explained that Arey Jones had submitted
four different options that included both the Pearson and the HMH Curriculum
providers and Apple came in first and fourth and the fourth place was with a
curriculum provider other than Pearson. The Chair announced that the Committee
would discuss scoring at its December meeting. It was asked why only those six
curriculum providers appeared on the slide, when they had heard that submitted
proposals included content from Lexia Reading, Amplified Learning, Achieve and
Empower 3000, and whoever made ST Math. Mr. Tucker indicated he would look
into that, but that the six on the slide are the only ones he recognized as a
curriculum provider, as opposed to a content subcontractor.
The Chair referenced a recently approved Board resolution, which directed LAUSD
staff to focus on Phases 1 and 2 of the CCTP during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school
years, expand the devices being tested to include laptops, and called for an
evaluation across Phases 1, 2 and 1L to determine what devices and curricula
should be used in any future Phases.
The Committee requested an opportunity to review the entire Pearson curriculum.
An External Representative said that she had heard that it was not yet completed
and not available. It was asked when LAUSD received the Math curriculum. Mr.
Tucker stated that the contract recognized that some of the standards in Math had
not yet been completed and so the curriculum in this area would still be developed.
The Chair asked that the Committee be told at the next meeting if the finished
curriculum had been already uploaded to the Phase 1 delivered devices or told
when it would be uploaded. Mr. Tucker said he did not know if the Pearson
curriculum was finished. A presentation slide that was scheduled to be reviewed at
the December meeting stated that the Pearson curriculum was complete but
contractually would not be made available to LAUSD until August 2014.

30

Mr. Tucker said that the contract start date was July 16, 2013, and that he believed
that, in order for LAUSD to be able to use the curriculum on the tablets commencing
July 17, 2016, an additional payment would have to be made to Pearson.16
It was asked whether the proposal scorers only were able to see tablet computers
and whether they got to see all of the possible curriculum. Mr. Tucker said the 32
evaluators, 19 of whom were either teachers or former teachers, were able to
evaluate the ten proposals that provided curriculum on a device.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Mark Hovatter
said LAUSD would not be paying for services that are not received so LAUSD would
renegotiate the license agreement if curriculum were not delivered. Mr. Hovatter
also said that after the three-year contract, there would be the possibility LAUSD
would use different curriculum, based on having a new RFP. He also said that, if
LAUSD did not believe the Apple contract was providing what the students need,
LAUSD would have the ability to just stop ordering additional devices. Mr. Hill said
the three-year clock would start when any individual device is received not when
the contract first started for the first device received. He said that Apple made this
clear in documents they provided. The Chair pointed out during the meeting that a
resolution had been passed that directed the Administration, Office of General
Counsel and the Board [to] undertake a quality review of the current Apple contract
and bring all recommended revisions and edits to the Board for consideration as
deemed appropriate.
During the meeting, Boardmember LaMotte was adamant that teachers should not
have to feel that they were stuck with the curriculum if it proves over time to not
meet LAUSDs needs. She wanted to know if LAUSD would have the flexibility to
move to another more effective curriculum, if necessary. Mr. Hovatter stated that
LAUSD could terminate the contract for convenience or just not purchase any more
devices.
Mr. Tucker answered a number of questions that had been submitted previously. In
response to the question of whether LAUSD would receive 4th Generation iPads even
when there were newer iPads on the market, Mr. Tucker stated that the contract
was for the purchase of 4th Generation iPads. He pointed out that, akin to cell
phones in which newer versions are continually being released, one must eventually
stop and buy. He stated that LAUSD had bought what was believed to be the best
item on the market at the time. During the meeting, Mr. Hill also stated that the
reason LAUSD had wanted the iPad 4 for all schools was to have a consistent device
and consistent content. He noted that in the future, LAUSD would bid and would
probably have multiple devices.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Tucker returned to the podium and, in response to a
question from the Committee, stated that he would provide information on the

16 This was corrected by Mr. Hills testimony, a few minutes later.

31

vendor selection committee names, offices they worked for and whether any
worked for Dr. Jaime Aquino in the Office of Instruction.17
It was asked how complete the Pearson curricula were, and how complete they
were when procured. The Chair and Mr. Tucker determined that the Office of
Instruction and School Support would be asked to address those questions at a
future Committee meeting.
Mr. Chandler delivered a report on the delivery of devices. He said that, as of
November 4, 2013, 41 schools had received an aggregate of approximately 25,000
iPads.
Mr. Hill addressed the Committees concern from a prior meeting about whether
LAUSD got a good deal on the Apple-Pearson purchase. He reviewed a slide that
was previously shown to the Board, which broke down the retail costs of the device
and the bundle of ancillary products and services, and indicated the discount
received by LAUSD. The $768 per seat price paid by LAUSD included the following
extras in addition to the 32 gigabyte iPad 4 with Retina display:

Special Case ($80);

3-year Apple Care warranty ($150);

Pre-loaded apps ($13-$21);

Pearson curriculum ($150-$300);

PD ($20); and

Buffer Pool ($20).

Mr. Hill stated that the total estimated retail cost was $1,000-$1,200. He noted that
the cost of carts (about $2,300 each) and keyboards (about $22 each) were not
included in the per-seat contract price. There were also several infrastructure
devices and services that were included in LAUSDs contract and price. He said he
believed LAUSD received a good price but had not seen prices paid by other
districts. It was recommended that LAUSD learn the prices that other districts had
paid for similar one-to-one initiatives to compare LAUSDs purchase price to other
districts and inform district negotiations. The Chair asked Mr. Hill if he wanted
someone on his staff to do the research or whether Board District 6 staff should
undertake the endeavor. Mr. Hill suggested that the research fit within the recently
passed resolution that required an analysis of the contract.

17 The list of review committee members for RFP #1118 provided by Mr. Tucker is included as

Appendix A14 hereto.

32

It was asked whether School Readiness Language Development Program (SRLDP)


pre-K students could receive tablets like other LAUSD students. Mr. Hill said he
believed pre-K students were not yet receiving devices for instructional reasons,
such as uncertainty regarding what curriculum would be used, but the question was
best addressed to Instruction.
In response to a question from a previous meeting, Mr. Hill reported that the total
expenditures for the program had been $24.8 million of a total budget of $50 million
for Phase 1 of the program. Phase 2 and Phase 3, as originally proposed, which
would entail delivering an iPad to each non-Phase 1 LAUSD student, were estimated
to cost an aggregate of $452 million, primarily from construction bond proceeds.
Mr. Hill noted the amount could change if the Board decided not to move forward or
if the Board decided to move forward with multiple devices. He said some
percentage of these costs would need to be paid for from the General Fund. He
stated that, while bond funds could be used for support teams at school sites, one-
to-one teacher trainings and support would need to be financed from the General
Fund. He said that it had been clear that school staff wanted to get iPads before they
were delivered to students.
Mr. Hill was asked to provide reassurance that the program was an appropriate use
of bond funds. Mr. Hill stated that this had been reviewed by bond counsel who said
it was a capital expense and an appropriate use of funds and that there had always
been a portion of Measure Q approved by voters specifically for technology. He also
said that, since the device was being purchased with a bundled package, which
includes curriculum, he believed it was an appropriate expenditure to use bond
funding for the total package. Mr. Hill also suggested that LAUSDs Office of General
Counsel should answer that question. The Chair announced that the use of Bond
funds for textbook purchases would be discussed at the next Committee meeting.
Mr. Chandler briefly discussed some technical issues and said the expected battery
life of an iPad was expected to be between 7 and 10 hours on a full charge. It was
asked how much memory the full Pearson curriculum would consume, with one
member noting that even with the Pearson curriculum only partially loaded on her
iPad, half of the devices memory had been used. Mr. Chandler said he would be able
to provide an analysis of device memory needs to the Committee and be able to say
how much room there would be for other applications and digital content after the
full Pearson curriculum had been installed on the iPads.
The Chair reviewed the items that would be brought forward at the next Committee
meeting that were the responsibility of the Office of Instruction and School Support.
She said answers to questions related to other applications that would be on the
iPads and questions related to Apple and Pearson, including allowing the Committee
to see the entire curriculum, would be covered at the next meeting. However, there
was some confusion with respect to who was responsible for presenting the
Pearson content to the Committee. A member of the Chairs staff mentioned that
Pearson had told her that they would need the permission of Apple to allow anyone

33

on the Committee to see the curriculum product. Meanwhile, Boardmember


LaMotte suggested the request be sent to Dr. Aquino, Deputy Superintendent, who
had previously said that he would provide the curriculum. Other topics expected to
be covered at the next meeting were digital library network questions, cooperation
with the public library system, the transition to e-books, the achievement test
schedule for the 2013-14 school year, and pre-K through Grade 3 CCTP plans,
student safety and responsibility, and parent education and participation issues.
Mr. John Sterritt, Director, Office of Environmental Health and Safety, discussed the
efforts of his office to assure the safety of students in regards to the distribution of
iPads and the installation of Wi-Fi systems in the schools. He said LAUSD had
investigated the potential harms of radio frequency (RF) radiation beginning with
the installation of cell phone towers near school sites. At that time, a
precautionary standard of 0.1 microwatt/cm2 was established (10,000 times less
than current regulatory requirements). He said that LAUSD even engaged outside
technical consultants (U.R.S.) through an RFP process to review the current
standards, and U.R.S. determined that the existing standards were proper. Using
those standards, the specifications for the devices were developed and included in
the RFP for the devices themselves. The Chair asked for the consultants report to
be distributed to the Committee. Mr. Sterritt said that no devices submitted failed to
meet the standards, which was expected given LAUSDs specificity on this point in
the RFP. He said that the procurement bid was for Wi-Fi only and not cellular 3G
or 4G, which would produce significantly stronger RF radiation. He stated that,
although LAUSD was doing studies on 3G and 4G RF exposure levels, it had not yet
been determined whether those would be at safe levels. He said that the Wi-Fi
testing was continuing in classrooms at four schools to verify and validate that
actual radiation exposures from the devices were within the established safety
standards, as predicted. He indicated that LAUSD was also looking ahead to
prospective keyboard and Bluetooth activity, to make sure exposures would remain
in the safe range.
Mr. Sterritt responded to questions and concerns from the Committee. He said that
there had not been any data suggesting that exposure was a concern, but the office
would continue to monitor the schools. He also responded to questions from
previous meetings concerning issues such as electrosensitivity and the safety of Wi-
Fi radiation. The Chair announced that the Committee would invite Student Medical
Services to address the Committee at a future meeting regarding issues of
electrosensitivity.
The Chair stated that she had contacted the AALA and asked if they could conduct a
survey of their members who were involved in the Phase 1 implementation. AALA
conducted a survey from October 21-25 and sent it to 38 Phase 1 Principals and
Assistant Principals. AALA received 24 responses back. The Chair reviewed the
survey highlights with the Committee. Among other findings, only 40% of
respondents said they were well prepared to implement the program and 80% said
they had problems with signing on or wireless connectivity. On the other hand,

34

some respondents commended the technical support they received and many
commended some of the pre-loaded apps (e.g. Edmodo, Brain Pop, and Notability).
When it came to key recommendations, 90% of AALAs survey respondents said
LAUSD should continue the program, and they were more divided on whether
students should take the devices home (55% yes, 30% no, and 15% not sure).
Comments ranged from there must be more security before iPads are sent home to
the iPads are pointless if they cant be taken home. The Chair acknowledged that,
if the devices do not go home, they must be distributed and collected every day
which causes some issues at the high schools. However, the Chair emphasized a
belief in the importance of parents having a say in whether or not the devices go
home. The Chair also pointed out that sixteen respondents had problems with
wireless connectivity and six respondents noted that they had a problem with
cyber-bullying.
The Chair asked the Committee for topics of concern that could be addressed at the
next meeting. It was asked if anyone who reported to Deputy Superintendent Jaime
Aquino or was evaluated by him took part in the scoring of the proposals or
interviews or helped draft the rubric for scoring of the Pearson content. Mr. Tucker
stated that he had provided a list of the evaluators and could line those up with who
works for instruction. A couple of External Representatives expressed concern
about the reliability of LAUSDs wireless network, given their experiences with the
existing wired internet access at LAUSD schools being slow. Mr. Chandler was asked
to report on the existing systems and LAUSDs upgrade plan at a future Committee
meeting. An External Representative asked if parents would have access to IT
services for devices sent home. Mr. Chandler said there was 24-hour support. Mr.
Chandler said he would also come back to the Committee with a presentation on the
CCTP technical support plan.
January 7, 2014

The Committee had initially scheduled a meeting for December 5, 2013. However,
Boardmember and Committee Member Marguerite LaMotte had passed away in her
sleep the preceding night. The Committee meeting was postponed a month, and
began with a moment of silence in honor of the esteemed Ms. LaMotte.
The Chair determined that public speakers would be heard at the beginning, middle
and end of the meeting, and called for the first several to speak. Bill Gaffney, who
introduced himself as the Chapter Chair at Fulton College Prep., asked whether
LAUSD had weighed students lack of Wi-Fi access at home as an obstacle to
effective use of the devices, and considered funding Wi-Fi accessibility at some
locations in the schools or the greater communities. Another public speaker, Dr.
Gary Steger expressed concern that the iPad had limited functionality as compared
to laptops, and wondered whether LAUSD was in effect turning a $700 iPad into a
50-cent No. 2 pencil used for the unfunded mandate of Common Core testing. A later
public speaker, Frederick Bertz from UTLAs Substitute Teacher Committee asked

35

that LAUSD provide substitute teachers with Saturday professional development on


the use of the technology and programs. He noted that substitutes were being given
lesson plans that required the use of the iPads because teachers presupposed that
the substitutes had received training on the iPads.
Next, Dr. Lim delivered an update on LAUSDs evaluation activities to date with
respect to the CCTP. Dr. Lim reported that LAUSD had issued a Request for
Qualification (RFQ) to pre-qualify external evaluation firms for this project. An
External Representative asked whether it was prudent to spend money on a third-
party evaluator, rather than using experts already on payroll. The Chair responded
that, independence of the evaluator was an important LAUSD objective, despite the
additional cost, and asked whether the evaluators will be operating under the
auspices of LAUSDs Office of the Inspector General, as suggested by the Bond
Oversight Committee, to promote greater independence. Dr. Lim replied that the
project would be an evaluation, not an audit.
Dr. Lim explained that the initial evaluation would be preliminary with very little
student outcome information. Among other things, Dr. Lim noted that the proposed
evaluation would issue before the SBAC assessments would be completed (and even
those assessments would not make any scores available), and that no year-over-
year comparisons could yet be made.
Next, Mr. Chandler addressed IT-related questions. Among other things, he
reported estimated network up time of 97.88% over a 24-hour day, with the regular
school day being a little higher. Mr. Chandler addressed comments from a public
speaker earlier in the evening (who had suggested the Wi-Fi was unreliable at
Fulton College Prep.) by stating that his department received 88 tickets from that
school since September, and only 10 related to the wireless: four in the Principals
office, four in the library, one in the lab, and one in the PD center. Moreover, only
five such tickets remained open, and none of them was wireless related. Mr.
Chandler concluded that if there were widespread wireless problems at that school
site, then no one had told ITD about it.
The Committee questioned whether schools were actually being encouraged to
call-in when internet access slows down, or were just practicing resiliency and
coping. One External Representative pointed out that when the network slows
down, staff at the school site would tend to wait an hour or two before calling the
school tech who would contact LAUSD. Mr. Chandler replied that, especially given
the new importance of Wi-Fi to instruction, teachers should be reporting any
problems to ITD within minutes. He also stressed that there were things ITD could
do to fix common wireless disruptions quickly and often without even having to
send a technician into the field.
It was asked whether it was expected to cost $700 million to upgrade the school
sights, to which Mr. Chandler replied that LAUSD may have already spent that much,
as LAUSD began the upgrade project several years ago and before the CCTP was

36

conceived. Mr. Chandler was asked to come to the next meeting prepared to discuss
the history and projections of the infrastructure upgrades, including how much had
been, and was expected to be, spent, including any appropriate analysis of increased
needs in several years as technology continues to advance.
One External Representative noted that LAUSDs Help Desk response times were
already slow, and asked what ITDs plans were for handling the additional
anticipated demand from CCTP and especially during testing. Mr. Chandler reported
that LAUSDs Support Plan included hiring more people and aiming to be open for
24-hour support. In response to what IT support would be available to parents, it
was presented that ITD was looking at various options and models to provide
traditional and after-school hours support. In response to a query regarding when
24-hour support would be available, Mr. Chandler stated that he would bring the
support plan back to the committee for conversation and that LAUSD was working
with labor partners to figure out how LAUSD could implement 24-hour support.
Next, Mr. Tucker addressed procurement related questions. He indicated that
LAUSD was seeking one-to-one program market information from other school
districts, and distributed copies of the LAUSD Device Procurement Survey that
was developed to solicit this information. He also responded to the question of
whether anyone who reports to and is evaluated by Dr. Aquino participated in the
evaluation and scoring. Mr. Tucker presented a slide that stated One non-scoring
technical advisor, Gerardo Loera, is Dr. Aquinos direct report.
It was asked why one vendor was disqualified for turning in only a partial package,
but Apple-Pearson was chosen despite their curriculum also being incomplete. Mr.
Tucker stated that Pearsons product was in development and that the RFP did not
require the curriculum piece to be fully complete. The Chair asked how the RFP
would work for Phase 1L. Mr. Tucker said they would use RFP #1118 as a model,
but make some changes, including the description of devices. Once again, a
technical committee would analyze demonstration devices, and those meeting basic
requirements would go before panels of representatives sent from each of the
participating schools. The vendors would then demonstrate and be scored. LAUSD
would ask for best and final prices and the schools would each choose from among
the top three. When Mr. Tucker stated that LAUSD would have zero-tolerance for
reviewers having any shareholdings or interests in vendors or subcontractors, it
was asked whether any shareholders were on the review committee for the RFP
that resulted in the Apple-Pearson contract. Mr. Tucker replied that the rules
allowed for de minimus share ownership and other interests, but that LAUSD would
instead use a zero-tolerance standard for the Phase 1L RFP.
A number of questions were asked regarding potential conflicts and gifts involving
Apple-Pearson and LAUSD decision-makers. Mr. Hovatter explained that some
LAUSD staff received devices from Apple at a conference they attended (along with
all other attendees), but that this occurred prior to the RFP and that any devices
they received would have been LAUSD, rather than personal, property. Mr. Hovatter

37

stated that LAUSDs Office of Inspector General was currently doing a review of this
issue in the context of the Apple-Pearson procurement and would come back with a
recommendation. Later, Mr. Loera added that LAUSD had paid the fees for
employee attendance at the conference and that the device was not a gift. The Chair
read a conference announcement that stated that there was a summer institute on
CCSS and Digital Resources offered by the Pearson Foundation July 16th to 20th,
2012 in Palm Desert. The announcement stated Teachers who attend will receive
four days of professional development; housing for four nights; all meals for Monday
night through Friday morning; airline transportation and transfer to the hotel; paid
registration fee, and use of a District iPad given to LAUSD from the Pearson
Foundation.18 Mr. Hovatter stressed that LAUSD was seeking to avoid even these
appearances of conflict for the Phase 1L procurement. The Chair announced she
would ask representatives of LAUSDs Office of General Counsel to address the
Committee on applicable conflicts policies.
Next, Mr. Loera addressed the Committee regarding Curriculum and Instruction
related questions. Mr. Loera reported that Pearson had completed 161 school visits
as of December 4, 2013, and that 22 future school visits were scheduled. It was
asked why some schools were visited more than others (e.g. Roosevelt once, but
Westport Heights 15 times). Mr. Loera replied that it was based on schools
requests for extra visits. He explained that the contract only required one Pearson
training per school, but that Pearson had been going above and beyond in providing
additional PD at LAUSDs request. It was asked whether these additional PDs were
adding new and exciting supports or just re-hashing areas that may have been
poorly covered at prior PDs. The Committee also asked whether the schools with
more support visits were doing better than the ones with fewer PDs. Mr. Loera
stated that the feedback from Pearsons first visits was 90 percent plus positive,
but that any kind of training required long-term systemic revisits.
Mr. Loera then addressed the question of completeness of the Pearson curriculum,
stating that, while the full curriculum was complete, LAUSD was only allowed to
access it digitally according to the timeline set forth in the contract. The Chair
stated that the Committee had been repeatedly asking to know what the scorers
actually scored of Pearsons content, and again asked that the Committee be shown
what the review committee would have seen of Pearsons curriculum. Mr. Loera
stressed that there is a distinction between a digital curriculum being done and
being digitally available, and affirmed that the Pearson curriculum had been
completed, published and even reviewed by the State. Mr. Tucker offered to provide
the Committee with the actual score sheets that were used, with comments on the
side19, but said the demonstration devices, themselves, had been returned. The
Committee suggested that it was a difficult thing to look at a paper version of a
curriculum and decide what would have the most promise in digital form, and even

18 A notice to Stamford Public Schools regarding Pearsons 2012 Summer Institute is included as

Appendix A41 hereto. It is presumed that similar invitations were delivered to LAUSD personnel.
19 The score sheets are included as Appendix A40 hereto.

38

more difficult if the reviewers only reviewed a non-existent digital version and did
not have access to the paper version. Mr. Tucker confirmed that, although they
would have also read the Proposers written response to the RFP, the review
committee in fact scored only what was loaded on the demonstration devices. Mr.
Tucker offered to get the language from the RFP that described what the vendors
could provide in terms of curriculum, as Procurement knew that incomplete
curriculum was going to be an issue. The Chair repeated her request for the
Committee to review the full Pearson curriculum, and quoted an L.A. Weekly
article20 that reported a Pearson representative insisted it was Apple that was not
allowing Pearson to show the Committee the content LAUSD had purchased.
Another External Representative suggested that L.A. Weekly, too, might have only
reviewed an incomplete curriculum but not realized it.
In response to a question, Mr. Loera reported that LAUSD was scheduled to receive
the high school math curriculum in August 2014. The Chair asked when the license
would expire for the high school curriculum that had not been delivered yet. Mr.
Loera said he thought it was three years from delivery, but would find out and
inform the Committee. The Chair announced that the Committee will invite LAUSDs
Office of General Counsel to discuss questions about spending bond proceeds to
purchase curricula at the next meeting, and would also have a discussion of
procurement ethics.
Mr. Loera continued addressing the instruction-related questions from the prior
meeting. He asserted that advanced students would not be expected to move ahead
in subject matter, but rather to delve deeper with grade level content. He also
stated that Pearson would provide printable .pdf files for students to use at home if
they could not take (or opted-out of taking) the device home. Mr. Loera discussed
pre-loaded apps and explained that, currently, teachers could download whatever
apps they wanted without LAUSD approval. He pointed out that parents, too, could
download their own apps once devices go home, but that some things would be
filtered and not accessible on the LAUSD network. The Chair remarked that LAUSD
ought to seek a balance between prescriptive mandates and freedom of choice. In
response to a question about differentiation for Special Education and ELL students,
Mr. Loera stated that this remained, and always had been, the teachers
responsibility. He also asserted that the devices afforded more flexibility to do this
differentiating than paper and pencil materials, although no elaboration was
offered.
It was asked whether any classified employees would receive PD related to the
devices. Mr. Loera said there was no money budgeted for classified PD, so LAUSD
had not planned any. It was asked whether it might be a good idea for some
classified staff to receive PD, so they could respond meaningfully to students iPad
questions. The Chair asked for the Committee to receive a demonstration of the

20 See Despite Bad Press, LAUSD's iPad Curriculum Is Impressing Educators, Beth Barrett, L.A. Weekly

Thursday, December 19, 2013.

39

device reading passages of text back in other languages. The Chair also asked
whether the Committee could observe some classrooms using the devices in a non-
disruptive way.
It was asked whether there were any Williams/Valenzuela problems for LAUSD if
the iPads did not go home, particularly once they successfully replace textbooks as
was a stated goal. It was asked whether Instruction was actively pursuing e-
textbooks in furtherance of such goal, and Mr. Loera said that it was not, because it
preferred digital curricula constructed with the CCSS explicitly in mind. It was
asked why LAUSD would not just put its existing textbooks onto the iPads in the
meantime while it seeks digital curricula. Mr. Loera suggested that the challenge
was one of format and compatibility, but affirmed that Instruction was researching
how best to do that.
Mr. Loera then briefed the Committee on the 2013-14 SBAC Field Test schedule. He
noted that, while the SBAC test window would open on March 18 and close on June
6, the California Department of Education was likely to assign schools a shorter
window within that timeframe. All LAUSD Grade 3-8 and Grade 11 (and a small
sample of Grade 9 and 10) students would take the Field Test for both Math and
ELA. It was asked whether the need for so many testing devices was driven by the
Field Test having no time limit. Mr. Loera confirmed that unlimited time was one
factor, but said that LAUSD followed the recommendations of Smarter Balanced for
how many devices would be needed. It was asked whether, after some time period,
students still testing could be consolidated (either with the testing devices or in
existing computer labs) and those who were finished get on with instruction. Mr.
Loera stated that LAUSD would leave those sorts of decisions to individual school
sites.
Next, Ms. Lucas addressed safety and students responsibilities. She stated that
cyber-bullying was covered by LAUSDs existing discipline policies and the
Education Code. In response to the Committees prior request to review a copy of
the draft disciplinary action matrix referred to in the September 24, 2013 Board
Informative from Mr. Hill and Mr. Chandler, Ms. Lucass presentation stated there
was no new progressive discipline plan as it related to CCTP, and that, after
consulting with Operations, it was determined that the best practice was to craft an
intervention matrix and school memo to provide guidance to schools. Ms. Lucas
stated that the draft had been created but the CCTP wanted to vet it with principals.
Ms. Lucas said she would provide the draft to the Chair.
Deputy Chief Santome then reported that LAUSD had engaged outside consultants to
review and provide recommendations regarding Safe Rooms for device storage. He
noted that the consultants report would be classified, in order to keep criminals
from accessing the sensitive information therein.
Ms. Lucas then addressed some parent education questions from the previous
Committee meetings. She stated that LAUSD was creating modules to support

40

schools in the rollout but the over-arching goal was to support schools in crafting
their professional development and parent education based on the needs of the
school.
An External Representative noted that, so far, parent education had been mostly
about why CCTP was important and not how to use devices or assist students with
content. Ms. Lucas concurred and stated that LAUSD was recommending that
schools embed parent education around educational technology in instruction so
that parents get a robust parent education piece, but that it was a school site
decision. The Committee and Ms. Lucas agreed about the importance of having
classified staff supporting the CCTP and rollout. Ms. Lucas mentioned that, at her
former school site, parent education was provided on Saturday and Sunday and on-
line. She stated that it was important to look creatively at options and offering
parent options, but such decisions remained up to the local school site. She also
suggested the Committee ask Ms. Lagrosa about LAUSDs plans for parent education.
Ms. Lucas confirmed that parents would only be financially liable for loss or damage
to devices in the case of willful neglect. The Chair announced that LAUSDs Office
of General Counsel would be asked to comment on what that means at the next
Committee meeting. It was asked what the consequences would be if a parent did
not sign the acknowledgment form. For example, would the student not receive a
device? Ms. Lucas responded that she was loathe to deny materials to students just
because their parents may not be able to read and sign a form.
In the final group of public speakers, David Tokofsky, AALA Strategist and former
LAUSD Boardmember, speaking as an individual and not on AALAs behalf,
commented that Pearsons Math curriculum included Envision Math, redesigned or
re-purposed in violation of the RFP. He also stated that Pearsons ELA curriculum
was aligned to the national Common Core market and not to Californias standards,
noting that the American Revolution was embedded in Pearsons Grade 11 ELA
materials even though California had moved it to the Grade 8 curriculum. Mr.
Tokofsky further asserted that Pearsons Math Curriculum was really just a digitized
textbook, which was what Instruction said LAUSD did not want.
February 6, 2014

A public speaker, Sari Rynew, expressed frustration that the iPad costs released to
the media by LAUSD did not include all elements of cost, such as tax and e-Waste
and whether these amounts include the charging carts. The Chair asked for the
Committee to be provided a per-seat cost for both the instructional iPads and the
testing iPads, including any associated purchases such as Wi-Fi hotspots. Mr.
Chandler agreed to provide the information to the Committee.
Mr. Oscar Lafarga, Administrator, Student Testing and Assessment Branch of the
Office of Data and Accountability, gave a report on the School Technology Readiness
Survey. He said there were three main tasks for each school to demonstrate
readiness:

41

Identify computers in a wired lab setting with the minimum requirements for
testing;

Install the secure browser provided by the Smarter Balance Testing


Consortium; and

Access the first question on the practice test.

Mr. Lafarga reported that he was the contact person for the three Smarter Balanced
working groups developing the surveys. He indicated that the California Smarter
Balanced technical specifications manual was expected to issue on February 11,
2014, and that LAUSD was planning trainings (in addition to state assessment
mandatory training for Principals and Testing Coordinators) which would take place
on February 19, and 21, 2014, and be made available on-line later. It was asked why
the survey did not assess wireless access, and Mr. Lafarga replied that ITD
determined wired would be the most stable. Nonetheless, he stated that they did
gather wireless data from schools that lacked a wired lab. It was asked why LAUSD
did not seek wireless data even for schools that had wired labs, since the wireless
performance information would be useful information. The Chair pointed out that
when the schools were engaged in the survey, it may have been useful to have
schools test any mobile devices they had on site so LAUSD could learn more
regarding what mobile devices work best.
Mr. Lafarga reviewed the survey results that had a 78% response rate and showed
only 38% of the responding schools were ready to use the computer labs for testing
in Spring 2014 (only 16% for Options schools) as evidenced by successfully
accessing the first question on the practice test.
It was asked whether the schools could be told how many carts they would be
receiving and when they would arrive. An External Representative noted that
readiness as measured in this survey was purely technical readiness and ignored
training and other important factors. It was asked whether schools that were
ready would not be receiving iPad carts for the Field Test. Mr. Lafarga said that
carts would be distributed irrespective of existing computing facilities. Mr. Lafarga
was asked what, then, the point of the survey was, and he responded that LAUSD did
not want the testing to consume schools computer resources that may have been
needed for regular instruction purposes during the testing period. Mr. Chandler
added that LAUSDs plan was for dedicated testing carts, no matter what. It was
asked what was planned in the way of technical support during testing. Mr. Lafarga
replied that LAUSD would provide schools with a reference sheet that would
identify solutions to possible problems. Professional development for teachers and
technology assistants would be school-site decisions with LAUSD providing the
resources. The Committee expressed concern that a Principals labeling someone as
a Technology Assistant would not necessarily mean they had any particular
expertise, and Mr. Chandler stated that ITD would be giving schools a number to call
for support and would have additional equipment available in case of emergency. It

42

was asked how LAUSD was communicating with Principals about when and how
many carts with iPads they would get for testing. Mr. Lafarga replied that Principals
would be told very soon. The Chair suggested that anything that could be done to
speed and improve communication at this critical time would be good.
The Chair asked that details about the role of the Technology Coordinator and the
guidance the schools received on how to identify the coordinator be brought to the
Committee. The Chair recommended LAUSD communicate better with students,
parents and school sites regarding the specific purposes of the Field Test. There was
additional discussion about how information regarding how long the test might take
was available through the grapevine but no specific detailed information was being
provided by LAUSD.
Mr. Chandler then gave a presentation to the Committee on the Virtual Learning
Complex. Mr. Chandler said that he would provide the Committee with an
introductory network review and that he would make it as nontechnical as possible.
He said his office was creating a Virtual Learning Complex in three steps:

Step 1 Increase bandwidth (laying fiber);

Step 2 Increase density (number of users who can access at once); and

Step 3 Enable flexible wireless access.

Mr. Chandler explained that the goal of the Virtual Learning Complex was to create a
high-density network to accommodate a computer device for every student, and
that these infrastructure improvement plans predated the CCTP. He pointed out that
when talking to vendors and partners, they describe LAUSDs network as though it
were its own country. He stressed that LAUSD could not just go to Best Buy, buy a
few things off the shelf and put them in the classrooms. Mr. Chandler stated that
LAUSDs data center, which is 24/7, would rival Southwest Airlines and Office Max.
Mr. Chandler described the elements of the network from LAUSDs connection to the
internet, the four geographic nodes of LAUSDs wide area network (WAN) and
each schools local area network (LAN) connecting to the nodes. The nodes
managed the network traffic and provided redundant access in case one of the
nodes failed. LAUSD must lay fiber-optic cable from school to node and from node
to node.
Mr. Chandler responded to questions from the Committee about bandwidth and the
ability to manage increased usage at individual sites. Mr. Chandler advised that,
with the new scalable fiber, LAUSD would be able to increase bandwidth within a
day, just by calling AT&T. He also explained that often when a school has
experienced a network slowdown, it was not due to lack of bandwidth. Rather the
wireless network needed periodic tuning to function optimally.

43

Mr. Chandler said he would have to respond later to the Committee about when
carts of iPads would be delivered to schools for the spring testing program, and
there were several comments by the Committee related to the need for better
communication with schools. He also talked about when early education programs
would have access to devices stating that LAUSDs design effort envisions
supporting more than a million students, because the assumption is that eventually
students would have more than one device: many-to-one.
Mr. Chandler continued his presentation by discussing the rollout timetable for
upgrading infrastructure to accommodate one-to-one (actually, somewhat more
than one-to-one) devices at schools and said that all 941 schools at 749 sites would
be one-to-one device ready by September 2015. Mr. Chandler acknowledged that
prior to the one-to-one initiative, the timeline was less aggressive but the CCTP
accelerated the timeline and decreased the time to build. Discussion between the
Committee and Mr. Chandler included reference to original LAUSD presentations to
the BOC that included schools buying more computers and a bring-your-own-device
scenario. Mr. Chandler explained that the bring-your-own-device concept had been
discussed internally as the school bus model: high school students may take the bus
when they are freshman or sophomores; but when they get to be juniors or seniors,
they like to drive their own cars or take public transportation.
The next part of Mr. Chandlers presentation was to answer questions that were
asked at the prior Committee meeting. He assured the Committee that iPads or
school repairs was a false dichotomy, as LAUSD was addressing both its facilities
needs and providing students access to technology on parallel paths, using separate
funds designated for those particular purposes.
The Chair expressed concern about LAUSDs communications strategy around the
rollout. She stated that it would be useful for ITD to communicate with school sites
that were concerned about bandwidth issues. Mr. Chandler replied that IT had
created a whole communications strategy addressing that issue but he would
double-check on it. The Chair pointed out that communications often had to go
through multiple levels prior to release when schools just need basic information.
She noted that, rather than spending school-site funds on a technology project, a
school that had received information that the school was about to get a technology
enhancement might instead use these funds for PD or parent education or
something less duplicative of district-wide initiatives. The Chair noted that Mr.
Chandlers presentation stated that LAUSD was spending $253 million to upgrade
school network infrastructure, but prior reports had said that $500 million was
planned for infrastructure before the CCTP. She asked that Mr. Chandler reconcile
the various figures and bring back to the Committee a more comprehensive and
updated accounting.
Dr. Kimberly Uyeda, Director, Student Medical Services, introduced herself and said
she would be responding to previous questions about radio frequency (RF)
exposure. She said that LAUSD had set a cautionary threshold in 2013 that was

44

10,000 time lower than FCC recommended thresholds. She said that the technical
specifications required in procurement included RF limitations designed to
maintain the cautionary threshold. Dr. Uyeda reported that the World Health
Organization had described electrosensitivity as characterized by a variety of
symptoms but that there was no scientific basis to link symptoms to
electromagnetic field exposure. Dr. Uyeda also asserted that, from evidence
gathered so far, there were no adverse short- or long-term health effects from RF
signals produced at bay stations (such as a cell tower), and that wireless networks
produced even lower RF signals.
Dr. Uyeda said LAUSD tracked student health through health office visits and would
be looking for trends that might be the result of wireless exposure. It was asked
how a student could be accommodated if he or she were sensitive to RF output. Dr.
Uyeda said this would be handled similarly to other requests for accommodation.
Next, Mr. Tucker reported on the results of LAUSDs Device Procurement Survey.
Mr. Tucker explained that LAUSD put out a survey to other school districts about
their purchases of technology, and reported that there was a very low response rate.
He described the purchases of other districts but said it was difficult to make a
direct comparison to the LAUSD program.
Mr. Tucker then reviewed the Procurement questions asked at previous Committee
meetings. Mr. Tucker noted that RFP #1118 was issued in March 2013, at a time
when no vendor would have been able to provide a full curriculum. It was asked
whether, in effect, LAUSD was choosing a partner and not a curriculum. Mr. Tucker
suggested that question be addressed to Instruction. The Chair commented that,
while not opposed to partnering with a curriculum company to do research and
development, she believed LAUSD should be getting some reasonable value out of
that partnership.
The Chair asked Messrs. Tucker, Chandler and Silva to address ownership of student
usage data at the Committees next meeting. She announced additional questions to
be addressed at the next meeting:

Why was repurposed content considered bad;

Did anybody check that Pearsons curriculum was not a digitized textbook;

How did Pearson outscore in the high school area if it had no high school
content;

What was LAUSDs cost of wireless per pupil; and

How did that compare to other school districts or to a major corporation?

Next, Mr. Gregory McNair, Chief Business and Compliance Counsel, appeared to
report on parent liability, the use of bond proceeds to purchase curriculum and

45

certain ethics questions. Mr. McNair introduced Ms. Darlene Vargas, LAUSDs Ethics
Officer. Ms. Vargas then provided the Committee with an overview of LAUSDs
ethics system.
Ms. Vargas reported that LAUSDs vision regarding ethics was for LAUSD to be a
trusted organization. She said the guiding principles were having an open playing
field, transparency and fairness. The Ethics Office supported four codes within
LAUSD; the Employee Code of Ethics, the Contractor Code of Conduct, the Lobbying
Disclosure Code, and the Conflict of Interest Codes.
Ms. Vargas stated that LAUSDs Conflict of interest Code includes disclosure
requirements on Form 700. It was asked whether individuals involved in the iPad
procurement were Form 700 filers. Ms. Vargas said that some might not have been,
but that LAUSD asked that they file nonetheless. The Chair asked about the Pearson
conference attendees who received free iPads. Mr. McNair explained that those who
were required by code to file Forms 700 knew how to report gifts, and that anyone
else who participated in the procurement would have received a document from
Procurement asking the same kinds of questions regarding discloseable conflicts.
Mr. McNair noted that LAUSDs Office of Inspector General was looking into the
issue of the Pearson conference, and deferred to the Office of Inspector General to
answer that specific question. The Chair asked for the Committee to see the
document that prompts disclosure of ethical issues. Mr. McNair indicated there are
two such forms: one for facilities procurement; and one for general procurement.21
Ms. Vargas described the forms as tools to help a filer be aware of situations where
he or she must disqualify him or herself, and added that the cone of silence was
another tool to ensure a fair process.
The Chair asked whether the cone of silence around the new curriculum RFP
prohibited her from talking to Pearson about the curriculum that LAUSD had
already bought. Mr. McNair suggested that Pearson would reasonably be concerned
about disqualification and may not want to talk about it. The Chair expressed
frustration that she had not been able to see the Pearson curriculum already
purchased by LAUSD, and that now an excuse was being made that there would be a
cone of silence due to Pearsons involvement in a new procurement. Mr. McNair
said he would work with Procurement on finding a way for the Committee to review
the curriculum that LAUSD had already bought.
Ms. Vargas explained there were three elements to ethics:

Legal (did it comply with applicable law and regulation);

Universal (did it support integrity, excellence and responsibility); and

Policy (was it consistent with LAUSDs policies, procedures and guidelines).

21 The sample forms provided by Mr. McNair are included as Appendix A42 hereto.

46

The Chair thanked Ms. Vargas for her presentation and asked how the Ethics
department had operated differently since its staff had been cut from six to two
personnel. Ms. Vargas said that with a larger staff, the Ethics office could do more
specializing and be involved in more LAUSD decisions.
Next, Mr. McNair addressed parent liability. He said that the same Education Code
section 48904 applied to parent liability for the iPads and textbooks. The standard
was one of willful misconduct. The Chair asked who would decide what fits into
that category, and Mr. McNair replied that school sites did for textbooks, and
presumably would for the iPads, too. He added that it was a judgment call on the
part of the Principal, and that there must be some process for appeal. The Chair
asserted her concern that parents be treated consistently throughout LAUSD. The
Chair asked who was responsible for training Principals on what constitutes willful
misconduct. Mr. McNair indicated he would find out and inform the Committee.22
Mr. McNair explained that the acknowledgement form was a notice, not a contract,
and that the parents were equally liable if their student willfully destroyed an iPad,
whether or not they signed the form. The Chair suggested that the parent
acknowledgement form be added to the LAUSD Parent/Student Handbook, and that
the liability be clearly explained before parents must decide whether to opt-out of
their students taking the devices home.
Mr. McNair then addressed the use of bond proceeds to purchase curriculum. He
said that Were comfortable with the fact that the Pearson software is bond
fundable. He distinguished the curricula loaded on iPads from textbooks (which
were not bond-fundable), because the bond measures voters were told funds would
be used for technology and not for textbooks. Mr. McNair stated that bond funds
could be used to purchase capital assets, which were defined in the school
accounting manual as anything with a useful life greater than one-year. Mr. McNair
added that the fact that iPads were taken off the school site did not change the
analysis. He pointed out that school buses and library books were bond-funded and
routinely left campus.
One of the External Representatives reported a rumor that iPads were going to start
going home again with students beginning February 20, 2014. The Chair asked Mr.
McNair what LAUSDs plan was, noting that a parent might be reasonably outraged
if held responsible even for malicious damage when the parents never said they
wanted the device sent home.
March 5, 2014

The Chair reviewed the agenda items and determined to postpone CCTP Issues
Related to Personnel, Follow Up on Questions Related to Curriculum and Review of

22 Ms. Lucas reported back on this at the April 24, 2014 Committee meeting, indicating that

principals general training from Directors of Operations would inform the Principals exercise of
professional judgment in making such decisions. See Transcript of April 24, 2014 Committee
meeting, pages 49-50, included as Appendix A43 hereto.

47

Material Related to CCTP to the next meeting. The Chair announced that the
Committee was being wound down and would be preparing a Committee Report
following the final meeting, which was expected in April.
Mr. Agustin Urgiles, Director of Education Applications, California Emerging
Technology Fund (CETF), provided an overview of CETFs School2Home program.
He explained that CETF was established by the California Public Utilities
Commission upon the mergers of AT&T, SBC, Verizon and MCI, to help those
companies provide $60 million to close the digital divide in California. Mr. Urgiles
reported that the School2Home program was a Grade K-12 strategy, with a middle
school focus, aimed at integrating the use of technology into teaching and learning at
low-performing middle schools throughout California.
Mr. Urgiles said CETF was currently partnered with four LAUSD middle schools, and
that CETF performed evaluations at two demonstration schools (one of which is a
LAUSD school): Central MS in Riverside; and Stevenson MS in Boyle Heights. He
reported that the evaluation concluded that buy-in by participants was of
paramount importance. He also said that deputizing student technology experts, or
a geek squad was a tool that generates more helping hands as well as student-
engagement. Mr. Urgiles indicated that CETF was still developing some kind of
affordable home-internet program to make available to students.
Mr. Urgiles mentioned a parent workbook, which the organization used in parent
trainings, and explained that the program employed lots of PD and six hours of
parent education. Mr. Urgiles described a pilot done at school sites to help create
enthusiasm before a full school rollout. Parents must earn a device to take home
for their students through participating in the six-hour training at the school site.
The parent education piece covered use and care of devices, on-line safety, and
showed parents how to access the student information system.
Mr. Urgiles was asked what the contingency plan was for parents who did not come
to the mandatory training. Mr. Urgiles said that it varied from school to school, and
that sometimes students were allowed to have devices even if the parents did not
attend, since they did not want to punish the students. Mr. Urgiles explained that,
although CETF purchased devices for Stevenson as a pilot, their contribution
generally consisted of training, advice and expertise. He stated that CETF had found
the most successful parent training was when it was broken up into three separate
two-hour sessions delivered on consecutive weeks, but that CETF was flexible. The
Chair expressed enthusiasm for the model parent education program, and lamented
that LAUSDs CCTP did not include a six-hour parent training at every school.
Mr. Urgiles described a strategy of introducing devices in the classroom without
sending them home. He said this allowed the teachers to excite the students about
the devices and recruited the students to advocate for their parents to attend the
parent trainings so they could bring the devices home. He indicated that CETF had
been able to achieve greater than 80% parent participation.

48

It was asked what CETFs advice and training would cost for a typical middle school.
Mr. Urgiles said that CETF paid about $12,000 to $15,000 per school, and that he
would provide the Committee more complete costs, which would include the school
sites costs (such as teachers time serving as facilitators)23. It was asked whether
CETF did anything to provide tech support to parents on an ongoing basis. Mr.
Urgiles replied that, while he thought it was important, they would leave that up to
the school to determine. He added that some schools leveraged resources creatively
by using volunteer top students from local adult schools, and stressed that CETFs
goal was to work with schools to set things up and then to go away.
Next, Deputy Chief Santome reported on student safety and device security. He
stated that prior to devices being delivered to a school, ITD must establish
technological readiness and connectivity, and LASPD would do a physical
assessment together with the administrator relating to safe storage. He explained
that LASPD officers were trained and managed by his office to provide advice to the
Principals, who ultimately must decide the safe storage location. He added that,
where facilities improvements were needed, these could be made narrowly using
bond funds for CCTP.
Deputy Chief Santome was asked about safety issues with sending the devices home.
He replied that LAUSDs primary goal was protecting the kids, not its inventory. He
described the following safety initiatives:

Safety flyers advising kids;

ITD was rolling out at-home filtering; and

Lock-it/Freeze-it/Track-it to thwart use of stolen devices and aid their


recovery.

Deputy Chief Santome described the mobile device management software and
reported that 99% of the devices had already been upgraded. The Chair asked that
the Committee be given a demonstration of the iPad being remotely disabled (or
turned into a brick). Deputy Chief Santome agreed to the demonstration, but
cautioned that, due to security concerns, they would not discuss how this was
accomplished at a public hearing. Deputy Chief Santome said he believed the
tracking and web filtering were successfully working and were important
components of the decision to allow devices to go home.


23 The financial data emailed by Mr. Urgiles included totals of approximately: $928,000 for Muir MS

(Grades 6-8, with 1,272 students): $1.2 million for Stevenson MS (Grades 6-8, with 1,945 students);
$1.9 million aggregate for SFIAM, Vaugh & Maclay (Grades 6-8, with 1,784 students); and $628,000
for Madison MS (Grades 6-8, with 600 students). That was about $1,000/student for the smaller
schools and $700/student for the larger ones, including about $412 for each student device. These
expenses included devices, as well as operational costs, but not infrastructure.

49

It was asked whether the new MDM closed the loophole exploited in the hacking
scandal. Deputy Chief Santome responded that it had, since the new MDM was just
like Safari on the iPad, in that it could not be deleted no matter how much one tried.
He added that device security and web filtering were not the only issues, that
student safety and parent education were also critical.
Deputy Chief Santome described the Law Enforcement Working Group with which
he was coordinating and their efforts to ensure safety and recovery of lost devices,
including safe passages, messaging to pawn shops and other second hand retailers
and identifying crime trends and patterns.
It was asked whether the communication plan included publicizing the disincentives
to theft. Deputy Chief Santome replied that public service announcements were
being developed. It was asked who was developing the lesson plans on student and
device safety, to which Deputy Chief Santome responded veteran, grade-level
educators, in consultation with ITD and police. He added that LAUSD was
partnering with Common Sense Media for the curriculum.
It was asked whether pawn shops were notified when the iPads went home in
December. Deputy Chief Santome replied no. It was asked whether LASPD
coordinated with law enforcement partners at that time. Deputy Chief Santome
replied yes. It was asked whether, if LAUSD decided to send devices home again, it
would even be possible for law enforcement to patrol that many areas at once.
Deputy Chief Santome said the extra coverage would not be sustainable. He added
that the key would be for the device not to be usable in unauthorized hands, on the
theory that one would not steal what one could not use and could not sell.
It was asked whether iPads had been stolen for parts, where useability would not
matter. Deputy Chief Santome replied that LASPD had not recovered any iPads
stolen in burglaries, which could mean any number of things:

Maybe the thieves became frustrated and threw the devices out;

Maybe they left the country; or

Maybe they used the devices for parts.

It was asked if this meant devices had been stolen which LAUSD had not been able
to track. Deputy Chief Santome confirmed, and stated that the devices were either
not active or they may be outside of North America, where LAUSD could track.
Deputy Chief Santome was asked how many devices had been lost so far. He
indicated he did not have an exact number, but that it was around one in a thousand.
Mr. Chandler reviewed the costs to date for CCTP Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 1L.
He reported that the Phase 1 budget is $50 million and that $22 million had been
spent and another $24.5 million was encumbered so far. For Phase 2, Phase 1L and
the Smarter Balance Field Test, the total budget was $114 million and $41 million

50

had been encumbered so far for devices, carts and keyboards. Mr. Chandler
reported that schools began receiving the iPad carts for testing on March 3, 2014
and delivery would be completed March 28, 2014. It was asked what would happen
to the testing iPads and carts after the tests were over. Mr. Chandler said he would
get back to the Committee about what would happen to the devices after the testing
period, but he expected the devices would be returned to the central office to
ultimately have curriculum software loaded for redeployment as part of subsequent
phases. External Representative Nguyen stated that the BOC was told that schools
could use the devices even after testing. The Chair said she thought the Board was
also under the impression that the devices would remain available to schools after
the testing.
The Chair said she heard of a school that already has devices to take the tests but
still would be receiving testing devices that are not needed. Mr. Chandler said he
would follow up and maybe an opt out program could be established.
In response to the Committees questions from prior meetings about the expected
costs of network infrastructure modifications at school sites, Mr. Chandler said $313
million was budgeted before the CCTP rollout for LAN modifications, which the
Board augmented by almost $65 million in June 2013, plus another $66 million was
approved in February 2014 to ensure enough wireless bandwidth was available to
meet LAUSDs needs, and another $194 million under the School Upgrade Plan was
currently unallocated, but earmarked for LAN modifications.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Chandler stated that LAUSD
owned the data on student usage not Apple or Pearson and that LAUSD did not
share this data with anybody.
External Representatives reported observing and/or hearing that internet
connectivity was particularly slow or not working at several LAUSD schools on
March 5, 2014, and asked whether the schools were really ready for the connectivity
demands of the SBAC testing. Mr. Chandler said they were not all ready yet, that
some would be ready a week or two before the tests, and that the testing carts
would provide Wi-Fi connectivity even if the school was not ready. Mr. Chandler
said he would deliver the Testing Support Plan to the Committee.24
After the Committee heard public comments, several External Representatives
expressed disappointment that the Committee was being cancelled before the end of
the project, as there was still work to be done. Others wanted to see the Committee
continue as an avenue for information to flow to and from the public, particularly as
billions of public dollars were at stake. One member suggested that the importance
of the largest public works rollout of technology in schools history was good reason

24 Subsequently, at the Committees May 28, 2014 meeting, the Chair noted that the request was

moot, since the Field Test had been concluded, and data would eventually be available on the actual
testing supports and their effectiveness.

51

for the Committee to go forward on a standing, rather than ad hoc, basis. When
asked for her opinion, the Chair said she, too, would prefer that the Committee
continue, although perhaps it would not need to meet every month.
April 24, 2014

Mr. Loera presented a public service announcement type video on digital citizenship
from Common Sense Media, featuring Chief Zipperman of the LASPD as well as other
top LAUSD officials. The Chair commended the video and suggested that it provided
good lessons for citizenship in general, not just the digital variety.
Next, Mr. Loera addressed some Committee questions from prior meetings. He said
the reason repurposed curriculum was forbidden in the procurement process was
that the switch to CCSS required a fundamental redesign of the curriculum, and
LAUSD wanted a deeply aligned curriculum designed from the ground up with CCSS
as the basis. The Committee had asked what evidence existed that repurposed
curriculum was not effective. Mr. Loera replied that there must be a deep
alignment in order to provide equity and access to high-level rigorous curriculum
and content. The Committee had asked how LAUSD would know whether curricula
were repurposed or not. Mr. Loera said that achievethecore.org provided tools for
evaluating alignment of materials with the CCSS, and that LAUSD also looked for
stray references to old standards, which would disqualify a proposed curriculum.
The Committee had asked whether schools with more Pearson PD were better
implementing the iPad rollout. Mr. Loera said a survey was being conducted, but
that it was too soon to know whether varying parameters in implementation
affected student achievement. He did indicate that external evaluators had been
hired by the Office of Data and Accountability to look into that issue.
Mr. Loera responded to a number of other outstanding Committee questions. Mr.
Loera stated that the license to the Pearson content, for each school, would run for
three years from when that school received the curriculum. Mr. Loera explained
that long-term substitutes would receive PD together with regular teachers, but that
day-to-day substitutes would not, and that LAUSD has not provided training for
classified staff. He added that parent training was budgeted at 10% of the training
budget and allocated to schools to spend as they see fit. It was asked whether
LAUSD was directing any parent training materials and procedures or otherwise
conducting quality control. Ms. Lucas explained that there were modules and
handbooks for schools to use, currently in English and Spanish and being translated
to other languages, too. It was asked whether there were any plans to train at least
the Classified Instructional Aides, Special Education Aides or Teaching Assistants, all
of whom worked directly with students.25 Mr. Loera said there were no district-
wide plans for that, but that school sites were free to use their budgets for that if

25 An External Representative suggested that Senior Office Technicians, Office Technicians and

Library Aides were additional classified employees who would be better able to assist students if
they received appropriate PD.

52

they wished. The Chair warned of wide discrepancies in perceived training quality,
particularly for parent trainings, and noted that people were working on this in
various departments e.g. ESCs, Curriculum, Parent Divisions but that it did not
appear they were coordinating their efforts.
Mr. Loera indicated that the intervention matrix requested by the Committee was
not ready to be publicly released yet. The Chair asked when it would be available,
and Ms. Lucas said by the beginning of the next school year. Mr. Loera was asked
about the planned quantity of digital citizenship lessons, and he advised that it
would not be based on hours of instruction, but on behaviors evident in students
use of the technology. Ms. Lucas said LAUSD was working with Common Sense
Media to develop plans for each grade level, including an initial boot camp
followed by digital citizenship lessons embedded in regular lessons.
Next, Ms. Lucas described two types of technology support personnel, Virtual
Learning Coordinators (VLC) and Micro Computer Support Associates (MCSA)
and their respective roles. The Committee referred to the Superintendents draft
budget and asked whether the 75 new VLCs in the budget for the 2014-15 school
year were just for existing Phases. Ms. Lucas said that, although the budget allows
for all these positions, LAUSD would only hire based on the number of schools
actually approved by the Board. It was asked whether the VLCs provide support
just for iPads or for all LAUSD technology. Ms. Lucas explained that the VLCs can
only help with iPads and other devices implemented through the CCTP, because
they were funded from bond proceeds.
The Committee had requested copies of the conflict of interest documents provided
to persons participating in the procurement process. Ms. Lucas said Mr. Tucker of
Procurement would address the request at a later date.
The Committee had asked about training for Principals in determining willful
misconduct with respect to iPads. The Chair suggested that LAUSD keep careful
track of the data on how parents were treated, to ensure that it was equal and
equitable across the district. Ms. Lucas reported that the Parent Acknowledgment
Form would not be included in the Parent/Student Handbook for the 2014-15
school year, since most schools would still not be CCTP schools.
The Committee had asked what LAUSDs plan was, and what guidance was being
given to Principals, with respect to devices going home. Ms. Lucas asserted that
there were checklists of steps that must be taken. She said some were LAUSDs
responsibility, like robust web filtering, and others would be the schools
responsibility, such as gathering parent opt-in documentation. The Chair asked for
this checklist, and Ms. Lucas said it was in progress and would be available in five to

53

six weeks.26 The Chair noted that it was critical that the Board take responsibility to
approve whatever policy was ultimately adopted.
It was asked what the plan was to ensure students who do not opt-in would still
have materials needed for academic progress. Ms. Lucas said that they were
working with school sites to develop policies around these equity and access issues.
She added that it could include providing e-curriculum on a home device, or
providing a print-out of homework materials. It was asked what portion of parents
had been opting out. Ms. Lucas said that, at her school, it was only three out of 180.
An External Representative noted that Ms. Lucass school was probably the best case
scenario, and Ms. Lucas agreed. It was asked whether it would even be possible to
have printed equivalents once the curriculum was fully digitized. The Chair noted
that printing may also be a logistical problem and that LAUSD may not be able to
achieve scale discounts, because the schools would be moving at their own paces.
The Committee had previously asked what would be done with the testing devices
after the testing period. Ms. Lucas reported that a decision had not yet been made,
but that concepts included:

Devices being returned to school sites; and

Devices being pulled back and only deployed to Phase 2 schools.

It was asked what the concern was with leaving devices at the schools. Mr. Loera
implicated summer storage security concerns. It was asked whether that issue
would apply equally to the one-to-one devices as it might to testing devices. Ms.
Lucas said that the plan at that time was to store all devices centrally, both for
security reasons and so they could be wiped and reconfigured based on lessons
learned from Phase 1. Ms. Lucas was asked how summer PD would be handled, and
she replied that the PD design and dates were still under development and would be
posted to the CCTP website.
The Committee observed that, in the short-term, devices would make student back-
packs heavier, even though the promise of the technology was to eliminate the need
for textbooks. Mr. Loera was asked what was being done to put existing textbooks
on iPads in e-format. He reported that staff was looking into that, but there were
issues to iron out with respect to getting the right formats from publishers and
ensuring LAUSD had the necessary rights. Several External Representatives
emphasized the value of pushing to digitize textbooks and lighten student
backpacks as soon as possible. One External Representative suggested that there
would be public outcry if the devices made backpacks heavier, rather than lighter,
when they go home. The Chair asked Instruction to put together a table showing the
availability of textbooks on LAUSD iPads, including explanation of why or why not.

26 As of the date of this Report, such checklist has still not been published, although a draft was

furnished to the Chairs office. See Findings and Recommendations Timelines, infra.

54

Mr. Loera said he would work with Integrated Library and Textbook Services to do
so.
Ms. Lucas then reported that the CCTP was currently under budget. The Chair asked
what was meant by burn rate in the budget presented, as well as forecasts. Mr.
Loera said an answer would be brought to the next Committee meeting.
Next, Deputy Chief Santome appeared before the Committee to discuss device
storage and security. He reported that there was currently no budget for public
service announcements, but that KLCS had produced them using existing personnel.
Deputy Chief Santome then introduced Marlon Shears, Jairu Tzunun and Oliver
Hammet from ITD to demonstrate Lock-it/Freeze-it/Track-it. Mr. Shears said that,
for security reasons, he preferred not to do a public demonstration, but would
answer questions as long as they did not have to give away any sensitive
information. The Chair again explained that the Committee did not want them to
show the public how they turn the device into a brick, just that they can. She
expressed some frustration that the Committee had asked for this demonstration
multiple times and had thus far been stymied. External Representatives discussed
possible methods to defeat a security system, and whether it might be
counterproductive to hold the demonstration in public. The Chair reminded the
External Representatives that all meetings are public, and stated that either
circumventing the security system could be done or it could not. She added that if it
could not be done, then a public demonstration would be valuable, and if it could be
done, then LAUSD would need to do more work before the devices went home with
students. The Chair announced that the demonstration would take place at the next
meeting. In response to some Committee concerns that the security features were
easily defeated, Mr. Shears advised that the loopholes previously exploited had been
closed, the devices had been upgraded (though, perhaps not the ones given to
Committee Members and External Representatives), and even the third-party
experts hired by LAUSD to try to circumvent the new security features could not do
so. Mr. Shears explained that the device security was not initially so robust, because
LAUSD was relying on its network for web-filtering under the assumption that
devices would only be used on campus. An External Representative asked whether
parents could be notified when a students device is tampered with. Mr. Shears said
that LAUSD was in an RFP for the next web-filtering solution and could add that as a
required feature.27
Deputy Chief Santome reported that LASPD increased patrols for Spring Break and
had no devices stolen, although there were some other break-ins. It was asked
whether LASPD could sustain that, and Deputy Chief Santome replied if I hire 80
more officers. The Deputy Chief stated that campus-securing procedures have not
been revised as a result of devices or carts. He explained that schools varied widely
in construction and vulnerability and a one-size-fits all procedure would not be
helpful. The Chair announced that she would like to find out whether hiring more

27 Was such a required feature added to the RFP?

55

officers could be a cost-savings by reducing losses from break-ins. Deputy Chief


Santome suggested Chief Zipperman would be interested in that as well and
asserted that LASPD had the relevant data to review.
May 28, 2014

Pedro Salcido, Coordinator, Legislative Advocacy, briefed the Committee on pending


legislation related to student data privacy. Mr. Salcido discussed Senate Bill 568
Privacy Rights for California Minors in the Digital World (Steinberg) also known as
the digital eraser law and Senate Bill 1177 Student Online Personal Information
Protection Act (Steinberg).
Next, Dr. Lim gave a presentation on continuing CCTP evaluation activities. Dr. Lim
stressed that the evaluation conducted by LAUSDs Office of Data and Accountability
findings to date, and included in the Interim Evaluation Report dated May 20, 2014,
were necessarily extremely preliminary and related to the CCTP rollout of Phase 1
devices to 44 schools in a 10-week period. She explained that this evaluation was
continuing, and that LAUSD had also retained an independent third party research
organization, the American Institutes of Research (AIR), to conduct a more in-
depth and long-term evaluation. Dr. Lim said that other researchers had also
submitted proposals to look at the CCTP, including USC, CPRE (a company
contracted by Pearson to evaluate their product), and UCLA. An External
Representative questioned whether CPRE is really independent, and asked why
LAUSD did not just survey end users itself.28 The Chair replied that LAUSD does
conduct surveys itself, but that the response was not always sufficient. She also
noted that it would be difficult to find a researcher that had never worked for any
interested party, and also that there was value in the researcher being independent
from LAUSD.
The Interim Evaluation Report showed that, as of January 18, 2014, while employee
active iPad usage that is any use within the last seven days was relatively
consistent (69%, 82%, 84% and 83% at secondary, middle, elementary, and span
schools, respectively), there was a great disparity in levels of active iPad usage
among students (34%, 91%, 77% and 34% at secondary, middle, elementary, and
span schools, respectively). Dr. Lim highlighted the evaluations finding that many
Principals (84%) but few teachers (50%) had a clear idea of what the CCTP was
trying to accomplish. It was asked whether there were further insights on this
disconnect, and Ms. Lucas said that CCTP had been very focused on deployment and
needs to bolster PD. It was asked whether the vendor challenges cited in the report
had been resolved. Dr. Lim said they had been, and that the problems were

28 Subsequent to the meeting, an External Representative noted that the Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation was a customer of, and grant provider to, AIR, and that Pearson served AIR as an
independent contractor (receiving over $18 million in such capacity in 2012), and questioned
whether these relationships might create any conflicts of interest. See AIRs Form 990, included as
Appendix A39 hereto, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations website
(http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Search#q/k=American%20Institutes).

56

primarily in the initial roll-out. She added that changes in direction, such as the
devices going home or not, contributed to delays.
Dr. Lim reported that, for the SBAC Field Tests, 91% (or 812,557) of 888,740 test
sessions were successfully started district-wide, of which 95% (or 772,369) were
completed. It was asked whether Dr. Lim knew why some did not finish. Dr. Lim
replied that the fact that many students who were not actually members of a valid
category of Field Test test-taker had attempted to take the assessments skewed
these percentages somewhat to the negative side. Principals and Testing
Coordinators reported lots of connectivity issues: some related to LAUSDs
infrastructure; some due to the devices; and some resulting from the consortiums
website, itself. The Principals and Testing Coordinators asserted that it would be
helpful to receive the devices earlier in the year, so students and teachers could
have more time to familiarize themselves with the equipment before the testing
window, and advised that more devices would be helpful in order to timely move
students through the assessments. They also indicated a desire for additional face-
to-face training, rather than relying so heavily on videos.
An External Representative related that she had heard desktops were better than
laptops, which were better than the iPads for Field Test purposes from some
students who ended up taking the Field Test on multiple devices. She asked
whether Dr. Lims office had gathered device-comparative information. Dr. Lim said
that they were looking at what kinds of devices were used, but that they did not
perform a true manipulation from which to scientifically investigate this variable.
Another External Representative noted that some schools which received the
testing iPads chose not to use them, because they felt they were better trained and
prepared on other equipment. Dr. Lim said that she had heard anecdotally that
desktops were best for the test, but that mobile devices were better for classroom
instruction. Another External Representative suggested that the real weakness of
the iPad for testing was the screen-size, and asked whether LAUSD would have any
hard performance data, rather than just surveys of student perceptions. Dr. Lim
said LAUSD would receive no outcome data to compare. She added that even SBAC
could not analyze the effects of testing devices, because they did not know what
devices students were using even though LAUSD asked them to have such a survey
embedded in the Field Test. The Chair suggested that LAUSD could set up an
experimental mock test to compare the different devices.
Mr. Chandler advised that, for most infrastructure connectivity problems, there
could be a relatively quick and simple fix of tuning the network, although school
sites were not necessarily aware of this. It was asked whether the carts worked well
enough that LAUSD may not need to get every classroom wired to provide the
necessary connectivity for a one-to-one program. Mr. Chandler replied that the
carts were not as robust or long-lived a solution.
It was asked what the evaluation revealed about the need to improve
communication between central offices and school sites. Dr. Lim said that

57

information came very late this year and that, as a result, there was a problem of
overload when it got pushed out to the schools.
Next, Mr. Loera reported on digital textbooks. He stated that substitution was not
Instructions goal, rather they wanted higher level technological integration
consisting of augmentation; modification; and ultimately redefinition. He also
explained that, unfortunately, LAUSD did not own the digital licenses to its existing
textbooks, and that LAUSD would have to essentially re-purchase its existing
textbooks in order to digitize them. External Representatives expressed concern
that LAUSD had no plans to use the devices as e-readers for digitized textbooks.
Daphne Congdon, Director, Information Technology, Finance and Administration,
presented an update on the CCTP budget. She explained that burn-rate, as used in
the hand-out, meant the percentage of the total budget that had already been spent
and/or contracted. It was asked who the staff would be for Phases 2 and 1L. Mr.
Chandler said it would be existing staff. It was asked why the contingency line went
up by so much, essentially the same $6.4 million net by which the tablet device
subtotal was reduced. Ms. Congdon replied that this was to keep the total
authorized amount the same. The Chair suggested that the Board ought to have a
say before money is re-allocated in this manner.
Mr. Chandler informed the Committee that the email system was being expanded
and made available to students, although this initiative was in the early stages of
pilot. It was asked whether other cloud services would be made available, too, such
as DropBox. Mr. Chandler said that they were researching different types of file-
sharing services, and that there were better, corporate, versions that could be
integrated better if controlled centrally. Mr. Chandler was asked about the timing of
this rollout. He replied that the migrations would occur in batches from October to
December 2014, with feedback taken and considered along the way. The Chair
asked Mr. Chandler to send a breakdown of Bond versus General Fund money for
each of the budgeted items.29 Mr. Chandler agreed and pointed out that LAUSD was
building infrastructure on the basis of an ultimate Bring Your Own Device
environment, so it was platform agnostic.
Next, the Committee covered questions related to procurement. As no one was
available from Procurement to present these items, the Chair read their responses
aloud. In response to the Committees request for the entire set of instructional
materials evaluation tools that were used to assess the various bids, Procurement
had provided excerpts and appendices from RFP #1118, indicated that the scoring
sheets were previously provided and stated that the demonstration devices were no
longer available. In response to the Committees question regarding how did the
Pearson curricula outscore others in the high school area if no high school content
was provided, Procurement wrote The evaluators had three ways to score

29 As the slide included asterisks noting Bond versus General Fund items, there may have been an

assumption by LAUSD staff that the information had been provided within the slide.

58

curriculum. The written description of what the design would look like, printed
copies of what the design would look like, and the curriculum as provided on the
demonstration device. Evaluators could use all three to score. Those with less
scored lower. The Chair noted that this was an unsatisfying answer. Procurement
claimed that the Pearson curriculum did not receive different scores on different
devices.
The Committee discussed rumors that some schools might buy devices without
content, outside of the CCTP, before those schools were included in an official phase.
An External Representative asked how LAUSD could create expectations in the
community, when it was unclear what the schools would be doing. The Chair
responded that, as a practical matter, schools did not have the financial wherewithal
to go one-to-one on their own. She added that ideally schools would decide, with
parental input, what technological tools they use.
Next, Mr. Loera reported to the Committee on a Take Home Test Pilot where two
schools would select approximately 30 students each who would bring their devices
home between May 19, and June 2, 2014. Mr. Loera distributed a copy of a Board
Informative dated May 19, 2014 describing this pilot program. Among other things,
a students participation in the Take Home Test Pilot required parent/guardian opt-
in and execution of the Acknowledgement Form, special training from LASPD
regarding safety, and participation in digital citizenship lessons. In addition, the
Board Report stated that ITD installed an upgraded web filtering system, that
LASPD was coordinating with local law enforcement agencies to ensure
coordination and awareness of the program, and the CCTP Mobile Device
Management team would be monitoring all devices in the pilot. It was asked
whether students were chosen because they were typical, or because they were the
least likely to mess up. Mr. Loera replied that, while the schools were a
representative sample, the particular students were chosen by the Principals on an
unknown basis.
After the Committee heard from public speakers, Mr. Shears introduced a
demonstration of security features which would allow LAUSD to remotely and
automatically disable devices. His team members, Jairu Tzunun and Jet Decena
demonstrated two scenarios:

A device that had an incorrect passcode entered too many times; and

A device that the user had attempted to reset.

In the incorrect password case, the device failed over to a disabled screen. Mr.
Tzunun explained that one must then go to ITD in order to have the device re-
activated. Next, Mr. Tzunun demonstrated killing another device remotely. He
explained that it was being wiped of content, restored to defaults just like a new
device but one protected by LAUSDs security features. After a few minutes, the
device reset and presented a hello screen which prompted the user to connect to a

59

network. Once connected, the device asked for a LAUSD single sign-on password.
Mr. Tzunun explained that, at that point, if one was not an authorized LAUSD user,
one would not be able to activate the device, so it was as good as a brick. The
Committee expressed some concern that the device told accurate time, had a
friendly looking hello message, and did not really look like a brick. Mr. Tzunun
replied that the device had no functionality, except as a paperweight, since a user
could not get past that screen. It was asked whether a more strongly worded
message, like Turn the device back in to LAUSD, Jerk, might be more appropriate.
Mr. Tzunun replied that there was some tracking value to having the user keep the
device on. Mr. Tzunun went on to demonstrate what would happen at this point if
someone entered a LAUSD password (perhaps a stolen password, in the
hypothetical case). The device initially appeared to be booting up, and then a
window that looked like Safari launched automatically. Mr. Tzunun said that, if a
user attempted to navigate anywhere (and Mr. Decena demonstrated an attempt to
go to yahoo.com), the device would be locked and the user could not do anything
with it. The screen turned red and displayed a message indicating it was LAUSD
property, stating it could only be activated by an authorized LAUSD user, and giving
instructions for how to return it to LAUSD. Mr. Tzunun was asked about the apps
that appeared to be loading when the device rebooted, and he stated that these were
pushed out so ITD could collect information about the person attempting to use the
device without that person knowing. The Chair asked Mr. Tzunun to take the device
back to the prior screen. He said that could not be done, even if one turned it off and
back on, it would return to the red screen.
II.C. Pearson Curriculum Demonstration
Though not part of the Committees official business, on March 19, 2014, Pearson
gave a closed-door presentation to various Board offices and their invited guests,
which included a number of the External Representatives, in accordance with
applicable law. By the time Pearsons content was finally made available in this
limited setting, LAUSD had RFPs out for laptops and high school curriculum;
therefore, the discussion was moderated, ostensibly to avoid any violations of the
cone of silence or other procurement rules.
II.D. Preparation of Report
After the Committees final meeting on May 28, 2014, the Chairs office prepared a
draft report based on the materials presented or otherwise available to the
Committee, External Representatives, and the public. This involved reviewing
Committee meeting agendas, transcripts and video, the various reports and slides
presented to the Committee by LAUSD staff and others, as well as relevant articles
and reports, many of which have been included as Appendices hereto.
The Chairs office produced a rough draft of this Report and made such draft
available for review and comment to all members of the Committee, to External
Representatives and to select LAUSD staff who had participated in the Committees

60

work (collectively, Committee Participants) under strict document control


procedures. Because the draft was an incomplete document, which had not been
subject to rigorous confirmation or quality control procedures, the Chair was
concerned that if it were distributed directly or indirectly to individuals other than
those who were informed by their experiences on, or in service of, the Committee, it
could have resulted in distorted impressions of material facts. Accordingly, the
Chair sought to minimize the risk of a larger than necessary distribution by
requiring that Committee Participants adhere to strict document control procedures
which included affixing draft and confidentiality legends to the draft report and
marking each copy in a manner that identified the individual to whom it was
personally delivered. The Chair also prepared a Confidentiality and Nondisclosure
Certification,30 which was reviewed by the OGC, and made the execution of it a
prerequisite for receipt of a copy of the draft report.
Between August 15, 2014 and August 18, 2014, the draft report was distributed to
the following External Representatives, each of whom signed a Confidentiality and
Nondisclosure Certification: Alvaro Alvarenga; Myrna Brutti; Alex Candelaria;
Raquel Cedillo; Sandy Escobedo; Lester Garcia; Lisa Karahalios; Quynh Nguyen; and
Linda Perez. The Chair determined to distribute the draft to the External
Representatives first, partly for document control, and partly because she believed
they might require additional time to review the draft, since they had other
occupations and lacked staff.
On August 20, 2014, the draft report was distributed to the following LAUSD staff
members, each of whom signed a Confidentiality and Nondisclosure
Certification: Dr. Cynthia Lim; Hugh Tucker; and Mark Hovatter. The following
LAUSD staff members declined the opportunity to review the draft report: Dr. John
Deasy; Ronald Chandler; Bernadette Lucas; Gerardo Loera; and Deputy Chief Jose
Santome.
Also on August 20, 2014, the Chair sought to distribute the draft report to
Committee Member Tamar Galatzan and Aixle Aman, Ms. Galatzans Deputy Chief of
Staff who had represented Ms. Galatzan on the Committee. Ms. Galatzan and Ms.
Aman declined to sign the Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Certification, citing a
need to consult with staff regarding the draft report. In recognition of Ms. Galatzans
need to consult with her own office, given that she had not personally attended any
Committee meetings, the Chair prepared a modified version of the Confidentiality
and Nondisclosure Certification that would have permitted Ms. Galatzan and her
staff to confer with each other in reviewing the draft report.31 Nonetheless, neither
Ms. Galatzan nor anyone from her office ultimately signed and delivered the

30 The form of Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Certification, which essentially provided that the

person signing it would keep the draft report strictly confidential and not use it for any purpose
other than reviewing the draft report, is included as Appendix A44 hereto.
31 A copy of the Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Certification tendered to Boardmember Galatzan

and her staff is included as Appendix A45 hereto.

61

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Certification, and, in accordance with the Chairs


document control procedures, they were not given a copy of the draft report.
Despite the Chairs meticulous document control procedures, it appears that
members of the local press managed to obtain the draft report.32
From August 22, 2014 through the date hereof, the Chairs office integrated written
and oral comments received from various Committee Participants and completed
this Report.
From now through 8:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on September 8, 2014, the Chair
will be collecting any comments on this Report, whether from Committee Members,
External Representatives, LAUSD staff or the general public. Such comments may be
delivered to the Chair via email, at monica.ratliff@lausd.net, or to the Chair's office
at 333 S. Beaudry Ave., 24th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017. The Chair will then
annex any comments so received to this Report via a supplement, which will be
presented to the Board by September 10, 2014.

32 For example, see LA School Officials Discussed iPad Contracts Before Bids, Annie Gilbertson, KPCC,

August 22, 2014, and LAUSDs $1-Billion iPad Effort Beset by Problems, Report Finds, Howard Blume,
Los Angeles Times, August 22, 2014.

62

III. Findings and Recommendations


III.A. Virtual Learning Complex and the CCTP

Overview

LAUSD has been seeking to create a Virtual Learning Complex in three steps:

Step 1 Increase bandwidth (laying fiber);

Step 2 Increase density (number of users who can access at once); and

Step 3 Enable flexible wireless access.

The goal of the Virtual Learning Complex has been to create a high-density network
to accommodate a computer device for every student. According to Mr. Chandler,
using new scalable fiber, LAUSD is able to increase bandwidth within a day - just by
calling AT&T. These infrastructure improvement plans predated the CCTP by
several years, but had been significantly accelerated to facilitate it. It appears that
the rapid acceleration of the VLC Project was due, in part, to LAUSDs desire to have
one-to-one technology in place to participate in the Spring 2014 SBAC Field Test.
Originally, at the August 23, 2013 CCTP Ad hoc Committee meeting, Mr. Chandler
stated that LAUSDs goal was to have all schools upgraded by late August 2014. On
that date, the timeline was described as a daunting, compressed schedule that
would put into place things to make LAUSDs schools successful. As of February 6,
2014, ITD reported that the timetable for upgrading infrastructure to accommodate
one-to-one devices at schools was on track so that all 941 schools at 749 sites would
be one-to-one device ready by September 2015.
Network Reliability and Technology Support

Findings
There have been some questions regarding the reliability of the network at school
sites. On November 19, 2013, several External Representatives expressed that the
network at their school or their childrens school was slow. At the Committees
January 7, 2014, meeting, Mr. Chandler reported an estimated network up time of
97.88% over a 24 hour day, with the regular school day being a little higher. In
response to a public speaker who had suggested the Wi-Fi was unreliable at Fulton
College Prep during an earlier meeting, Mr. Chandler provided some data to support
his conclusion that, if there were widespread wireless problems, then no one had
told ITD about it.
The Committee questioned whether schools are actually being encouraged to call-
in when the network slows down, or are just practicing resiliency and coping. Mr.
Chandler replied that, especially given the new importance of Wi-Fi to instruction,
teachers should be reporting any problems to ITD right away. He also stressed that

63

there are things ITD can do to fix common wireless disruptions quickly and often
without even having to send a technician into the field. Mr. Chandler suggested that,
contrary to popular belief, when a school experiences a network slowdown, it is
often not due to lack of bandwidth. Rather the wireless network needs periodic
tuning to function optimally.
In response to concerns that LAUSDs Help Desk response times are already slow,
and the CCTP is expected to increase Help Desk demand (especially during testing),
Mr. Chandler reported that LAUSDs Support Plan included hiring more people and
aiming to be open for 24-hour support. On March 5, 2014, Mr. Chandler said he
would deliver the Testing Support Plan to the Committee.33
For technical support during the SBAC Field Test in Spring 2014, LAUSD was going
to provide schools with a reference sheet, and ITD was going to give schools a
number to call for support and would have additional equipment available in case of
emergency. However, PD for teachers and Technology Coordinators to prepare for
SBAC testing and potential problems was to be a school-site decision.
During the CCTP, LAUSD plans to engage two types of technology support
personnel: Virtual Learning Coordinators (VLC) and Micro Computer Support
Associates (MCSA). The VLCs will provide support just for iPads and other devices
implemented through the CCTP and only for a limited time period because they
are funded from bond proceeds. The MCSAs, on the other hand will provide the
ongoing operational support for LAUSDs technology.
Recommendations
A reliable network is essential for instructional and operational purposes. There are
things ITD can do to fix common wireless disruptions quickly and often without
even having to send a technician into the field. LAUSD should communicate
forcefully to schools and school staff that they should report network connectivity
problems to ITD as soon as they arise. LAUSD should ensuring adequate staffing of
the help desk to handle call and chat volume. LAUSD should also explore the
possibility of making information publicly available that documents the number and
nature of help desk requests resolved and outstanding per ESC, Board District, or
school site on a weekly, biweekly, or monthly basis. It was very informative and
reassuring for the Committee to learn the status of help desk requests resolved and
outstanding for Fulton College Prep., after a public complaint about the schools
network reliability.
One-to-One Technology

The Committee did not delve deeply into the question of whether one-to-one

33 At the May 28, 2014 Committee meeting, the Chair noted that the Testing Support Plan request was

moot, since the Field Test had concluded, and data would eventually be available on the actual testing
supports and their effectiveness.

64

technology is necessary for student success under the CCSS. The general
assumption was that the Board and LAUSD are committed to the goal of one-to-one
technology.
Wi-Fi Access

One potential obstacle to many LAUSD students use of one-to-one technology


provided by LAUSD may be a lack of Wi-Fi access away from school. While LAUSD
staff reported that Wi-Fi would not be required to access the Pearson curriculum,
LAUSD should consider the feasibility of providing, or arranging for, Wi-Fi
accessibility at some locations around the schools and in the communities in which
they are located as a wrap-around service.
One stated goal of LAUSDs one-to-one initiative is to narrow the digital gap.
Presumably, the area of greatest disparity in LAUSD students access to technology
is not within their respective schools, but when they are away from their school.
Since devices do not have the same functionality in all environments, extending a
device-empowering environment (such as high quality student-accessible Wi-Fi)
beyond the school to locations reasonably accessible to all students would be a
further step towards closing the digital gap. LAUSD should continue to work with
the local city governments that overlap the district to increase Wi-Fi Access to
LAUSDs students, parents, and families.
III.B. Timelines
Findings
The CCTP Communications Team has written that, having the opportunity to
encounter and learn from challenges is the precise reason why the program was
launched in phases. LAUSDs initial CCTP plan, which was revised before any
portion came before the Board for a vote, involved a more condensed two-phase
rollout, with demonstration projects at 13 identified Schools For the Future (SFF)
high schools followed immediately with district-wide implementation.
However, even LAUSDs revised three-Phase rollout schedule may have been overly
aggressive, to the extent that it did not allow sufficient time for evaluation and
reassessment. A pilot program is conducted to allow an organization to collect
meaningful data and learn how to improve practices before the project is rolled out
on a large scale.34 One advantage LAUSD has as a result of its size is the ability to
experiment with pilot projects. However, this advantage can only be fully exploited
if LAUSD takes the time to thoroughly evaluate one phase before moving to the next.
By the October 29, 2013 iteration of the Common Core Technology Project Plan,
LAUSD had trimmed its plans for Phase 2 of the CCTP. Previously, Phase 2 had

34 LAUSDs Technology Project Mythbusters, dated October 22, 2013. See materials from the October

22, 2013 Committee Meeting included in Appendix A17 hereto.

65

consisted of a system-wide implementation, with devices deployed to nearly one-


half of LAUSDs schools, scheduled to run from January 2014 through July 2014. As
of October 29, 2013, Phase 2 would include:

Rolling out 1-to-1 devices to students at a maximum of 36 schools (up to


40,000 devices) by April 2014;

Providing devices and orientation to administrators and certificated staff at


LAUSDs remaining schools by April 2014 (approximately 30,000 devices);
and

Providing tablet carts and testing devices to campuses with inadequate


technology so they can participate in the SBAC assessments scheduled for
Spring 2014.

While these changes made the CCTP, on its surface, more incremental than the
initial timeline, there were still no clear metrics for gauging success or firm
opportunities to correct errors from one Phase to the next.
As a result, in part, of the work of the Committee, the Chair sponsored the Student
Success Through an Evaluation-Based Common Core Technology Project resolution,
which was approved at the November 12, 2013 Regular Board Meeting. Such
resolution called for LAUSD to engage in three fundamental activities with respect
to the CCTP: (1) slow down; (2) evaluate; and (3) learn lessons to apply to any
future Phases.35
It would also appear that the students defeat of LAUSDs MDM program and ability
to circumvent LAUSDs web-filtering may have been avoided if LAUSD had sufficient
time prior to the Phase 1 deployment to hire experts to test for security weaknesses.
After the MDM defeat occurred and a more robust MDM program and web-filtering
was put in place, LAUSD hired third-party experts to try to circumvent the security
features.
Similarly, the Committee learned that while LAUSDs CCTP safety plan includes
notifying local pawn shops regarding how to identify and report LAUSD property,
pawn shops were not notified when the iPads went home in December 2013.
Though the lack of notification to pawn shops does not appear to have had a
negative impact during the initial rollout, all aspects of the CCTP security plan may
have been able to be in place prior to the initial rollout with lengthier planning and
execution time. More importantly, with a less aggressive timeline for deployment,
LAUSD may have been able to hire security experts to try to circumvent the security
features prior to the Phase 1 rollout.

35 For more detail on the Student Success Through an Evaluation-Based Common Core Technology

Project resolution, see Background a Brief History of the CCTP, supra. The text of the resolution
itself is included as Appendix A21 hereto.

66

At the April 24, 2014 Committee meeting, Ms. Lucas said that, for Phases 2 and 1L,
devices would be distributed to schools upon satisfaction of instructional readiness,
rather than just technical readiness. Although the revised CCTP Instructional
Readiness Plan and revised School CCTP Checklist are still not publicly available as
of the date of this Report, the Chair was provided with embargoed drafts on July 21,
2014.
Recommendations
Future projects of this size and cost would benefit from realistic timelines created at
the outset and continually modified appropriately to allow for thoughtful planning,
execution, evaluation, and modification based upon lessons learned.
LAUSD should make sure that schools are ready to receive and responsibly use
devices before distributing them. It is recommended that the proposed
instructional readiness survey be thoughtfully and promptly completed in a way
that will assess instructional readiness, and that LAUSD include a minimum
completion rate of an Instructional Readiness Course in any final School CCTP
Checklist. The Committee also recommends that LAUSD strive to ensure that the
schools participating in Phases 1L and 2 are prepared in a way that includes
instructional readiness (and to document that through a survey and checklist) prior
to distributing devices to students. Finally, it is recommended that the Board take
responsibility to approve whatever policy is ultimately adopted with respect to
conditions to allowing devices to be sent home with students.
Ensuring real readiness may also alleviate some of the informational overload issues
that Dr. Lim reported Phase 1 schools faced when information was being pushed out
to the schools all at once.
III.C. Pricing and Price-Messaging
Findings
In response to repeated concerns about devices apparently being cheaper at retail36,
the CCTP FAQ explained that the per-unit cost included digital curriculum, security
features, protective covers and PD. However, the FAQ did not provide any
comparable pricing for these added features (nor did it mention the extended
warranty also included in the per-unit price).
At the Committee meeting on November 19, 2013, Mr. Hill addressed questions
about whether LAUSD obtained a reasonable discount on its Apple-Pearson
purchase. Mr. Hill showed a slide indicating that the $768 per seat price paid by
LAUSD included the following extras (along with their a la carte retail pricing) in
addition to the 32 gigabyte iPad 4 with Retina display:

36 For example, see EDITORIAL: iFiasco in the Classroom, Washington Times, July 9, 2014.

67

Special case ($80);

3-year Apple Care warranty ($150);

Pre-loaded apps ($13-$21);

Pearson curriculum ($150-$300);

PD ($20); and

Buffer Pool ($20).

Mr. Hill stated that the total estimated retail cost would be between $1,000-$1,200
for the product bundle procured by LAUSD. This is information that would tend to
dispel rumors that LAUSD overpaid under the Apple-Pearson contract.37
Recommendations
LAUSD must be more vocal and transparent in order to get credit for its hard work
and good results. Because LAUSD did not initially communicate well regarding the
value it had negotiated, instead of tallying a win, LAUSD was publicly accused of
paying above retail for technology. In striving to be a trusted organization, LAUSD
should be more vocal and more transparent regarding its financial decisions in
order to promote trust that LAUSD is a good steward of public funds.
Ultimately, there needs to be a public discussion about whether it makes sense to
limit the amount that LAUSD will pay for devices or look for cost savings at the
various grade levels. With RFP #1118, LAUSD sought the best value based on
specifications and sought the same device for every student. In light of the fact that
LAUSD never has enough funding for all it seeks to accomplish, it may benefit LAUSD
to seek greater flexibility in purchasing devices. SRLDP students, kindergarten
students, elementary school students, middle school students, and high school
students all need access to technology. The question remains whether LAUSD
should pay the same amount per device per student or seek cost savings. Perhaps
different grade levels could be provided with different devices with an eye to saving
money appropriately while still meeting student needs.


37 An External Representative noted that the per-seat price initially presented to the BOC and BOE

did not include tax, which may have may have lead to further criticism of LAUSD by the media
relating to opacity of project costs. Furthermore, LAUSDs plan involved purchasing iPad carts
($2,300 each) and keyboards ($22 each) in addition to the student device bundles described above.

68

III.D. Bond Funding and CCTP Sustainability


Findings
It has been stated that LAUSDs independent bond counsel opined favorably on the
proposed use of bond proceeds in connection with the CCTP. We note, however,
that such opinion was hedged with requirements such as:

Costs financeable with bond proceeds must be capitalizable under


generally accepted accounting principles applied in accordance with the
policies and procedures of the California School Accounting Manual;

Such costs must constitute construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation,


replacement, furnishing or equipping costs of a project listed on one or more
bond measures passed pursuant to Proposition 39;

The expenditures of bond proceeds must be in compliance with a Board-


approved Strategic Execution Plan; and

The purchases covered by the opinion Tablets, Software Component,


Hardware Component and Staffing Component did not necessarily
include any curriculum.

Notably, the opinion stated that certain software for information technology
applications may be financed with bond proceeds, but warned that portions of the
costs of acquiring, developing and implementing a software project often include
both working capital items and capital items, only the latter of which may be
financed with bond proceeds. Finally, the opinion warned of certain adverse federal
income tax results that could arise under certain circumstances, including if the
weighted average maturity of an issue of tax-exempt bonds were to exceed 120% of
the average reasonably expected economic life of the property financed by the
issue.38
A legal opinion reaches legal conclusions, based on a given set of facts and
assumptions. To the extent the facts deviated from the assumptions on which bond
counsels opinion was based, a different legal conclusion may or may not have been
required.
Concerns were brought up at the Committee and in the media regarding the use of
bond funds to fund CCTP, including fears expressed by some that facility repairs
would be underfunded due to bond funds being devoted to CCTP. LAUSD staff

38 On August 5, 2014, LAUSD sold $135.8 million of General Obligation Bonds having a three-year

term to match the expected useful lives of the devices and content purchased with the proceeds. The
market conditions resulted in an all-in true interest cost of only 0.90% on these new bonds. The
Committee commends LAUSD for coordinating maturity with useful life and for obtaining favorable
terms on this bond issue.

69

reassured the Committee several times that bond funds could be used for significant
portions of the CCTP.
The Committee was not presented with evidence that the devices either are or are
not booked as capital assets in compliance with generally accepted accounting
principles applied in accordance with the California School Accounting Manual. Nor
did the Committee review which software components of the CCTP do or do not fit
into the categories of bond-financeable purchases. These questions seem a bit afield
from the Committees core mission and more appropriately fall on the BOC.39
As for the long-term funding plans, the CCTP FAQ stated that the Bond funds would
be used for the initial transformation, but that LAUSD would sustain the use in
future years the same way it has historically paid for textbooks. Moreover, Mr.
Loera told the Committee that the ongoing technology expenditures could be offset
by potential cost savings from reduced or eliminated textbook and paperwork
expenses. It was asked how the projected replacement costs compared to LAUSDs
experience with spending on textbooks. Mr. Loera stated that LAUSD was spending
about $25-30 million per year to maintain and replace textbooks, and that LAUSD
held a textbook inventory of approximately $300 million. The Committee requested
that Mr. Loera return with more detailed information regarding projected iPad
obsolescence and replacement plans, and LAUSDs current textbook, calculator and
other expenses which would be made unnecessary by the devices.40
Mr. Hill told the Committee that, while he could not know exactly, based on his
review of the market, prices for electronic curriculum were running about $25 to
$50 per subject per year. He said that LAUSD planned to do an RFP for content
licenses to use after the Pearson license expires, and that he believed that the cost
would likely decrease over time. Mr. Hill also reported that textbook expenses have
averaged $60 million a year.41 The Committee noted that even at the low end of Mr.

39 The BOC Information Technology Task Force Report, dated November 18, 2013 (the BOC TF

Report), included a recommendation that LAUSD obtain a comprehensive reasoned opinion from
independent bond counsel confirming the propriety of using bond funds, not only for mobile
learning devices and educational software for CCTP purposes, but also for the cost of replacing these
items in later years. The BOC TF Report went on to recommend that, alternatively, LAUSD should
seek a Revenue Ruling from the Internal Revenue Service regarding federal tax law aspects of using
bond proceeds to fund CCTP-related expenses. See the BOC TF Report included as Appendix A24
hereto.
40 One of the slides Mr. Loera presented to the September 25, 2014 Committee Meeting showed a

Project RED finding that 68% of one-to-one schools showed a decrease in paper and copy machine
expenses (of unknown magnitude), and 88% showed some improvement in paperwork reduction.
See materials from the September 25, 2014 Committee Meeting included in Appendix A17 hereto.
41 While this is more than Mr. Loeras $25-30 million estimate, it is still substantially less than the

expense of sustaining device and digital curricula purchases. Even at the mid-point of the prices
estimated in CCTPs 5-Year Plan presented at the November 12, 2013 BOE meeting and November
20, 2013 BOC meeting (i.e. $200 to $400 per seat for devices, excluding instructional content),
replacing devices alone on a three-year cycle will cost LAUSD as much as it is currently spending on
textbooks ($300 multiplied by 650,000 seats divided by three years equals $65 million per year).

70

Hills estimate, $25 per year is more than $75 for a textbook that lasts seven years.
Mr. Hill remarked that $25 to $50 is the retail market rate and expressed optimism
that LAUSD would be able to command a substantial volume discount, like it did on
the iPads42. It appears that any textbook savings would need to be supplemented to
replenish devices, purchase any necessary software licenses, and purchase any
textbooks that may still be necessary. Furthermore, LAUSD must also pay for the
additional technology and instructional supports and other CCTP-related software
necessary to maintain the program in future years.
Recommendations
When funding projects in a manner that invites significant public scrutiny, LAUSD
should pursue transparency by quickly publicize and release reasoning and
documentation. There is little benefit to holding back information that explains and
documents to the public why LAUSD staff believes that certain projects can be
funded via certain funding sources.
LAUSD should plan now for funding the CCTP after the devices and licenses
purchased with bond proceeds become obsolete or expire. As much as feasible in
light of the changing costs of technology and the uncertainty regarding which
devices will be used in a district-wide one-to-one endeavor, LAUSD should be
transparent about how much General Fund money may be needed to replenish
devices and from where it will come. The CCTP FAQ stated that the bond funds
would be used for the initial transformation, but that LAUSD would sustain the use
of devices and curriculum in future years the same way it has historically paid for
textbooks. Unfortunately, at least at current and expected prices, the cost of devices
and digital curricula is substantially greater than LAUSDs historical textbook
expenditures. LAUSD should confront this funding dilemma directly, promptly, and
transparently.
III.E. Device and Curriculum Selection
Choice of One-Device-Fits-All

At the end of the RFP #1118 process, LAUSD chose to contract for iPad 4s with
Retina display. Pearson was the curriculum subcontractor. At the same time,

Add to that digital content license fees per year, per student, per class, and the aggregate expense
would be roughly double. But the expenses of CCTP do not end there. In addition, such 5-Year Plan
projected that, starting in the 2016-17 school year, LAUSD would need to spend out of its general
funds, an average of: $2-4 million per year on a Learning Management System; $28.4 million on VLC
facilitators and MCSAs (plus a very conservative $0.6 million on additional School Police); $7.8
million per year on non-school-based instructional support and IT support; and $10.4 to $11.7
million per year on MDM and web-filtering software.
42 However, given the substantial up front expenditures on PD and teachers having worked with the

Pearson curriculum for three-years, LAUSD may have substantial barriers to replacing the then-
legacy Pearson curriculum.

71

LAUSD already had a number of traditional public schools and public charters that
were using a variety of devices, including laptops, Chromebooks, iPads, and others.
The Committee has seen no evidence that any analysis was done prior to the RFP to
determine which type(s) of device(s) may be the best fit at the various grade levels.
The scoring committee only reviewed tablet devices, which had multi-touch display
capable of operating with a stylus per the RFP requirements, when determining the
device for the CCTPs one-to-one implementation. Students and teachers only
reviewed the Apple and HP Elite tablet devices as a non-scoring part of the RFP
process. LAUSD staff stated that there was a desire to limit the CCTP to one device
in the beginning but, eventually, to prepare for a multi-device and/or bring-your-
own-device environment in the future. While LAUSDs choice to seek a single device
was not unreasonable in light of the assumed constraints (an extremely compressed
timeline to prepare students for the SBAC Field Test and the goal of providing every
LAUSD student with one-to-one technology as quickly as possible), LAUSDs student
body is far from homogenous, and its technology needs vary from one grade level or
school type to another and from one activity to another.43
No evidence was offered that tablets or iPads are the best device to meet the needs
of all LAUSDs students. Some anecdotal evidence was offered that older students
and teachers of older students thought iPads were great for younger students but
that the productivity software available with laptops was much more useful for
older students. Anecdotal evidence was also offered that some schools and students
had reported preferring desktop computers for the SBAC Assessments and mobile
devices for classroom instruction. LAUSD issued RFP #14034: Laptop Devices for
the Common Core Technology Project on February 10, 2014 and RFP #14047 to
support Phase 1L. Phase 1L will allow an assortment of high schools to use their
choice of device within the confines of RFP #14034 and RFP #14047.
The choice of one device for the entire student body also led to public and
Committee concerns that, throughout the deployment, newer versions of the device
would be available and students would end up working on devices that were quickly
obsolete. The Committee hoped that a solution could be found to this dilemma but
was told that LAUSD contracted for the specific version, the price offered was for the
specific version, and LAUSD would have to negotiate for newer versions if newer
versions were desired. LAUSD staff also mentioned that there was a desire to have
one device for consistency.
Recommendations
Rather than assume that a one-device-fits-all approach to student technology will
yield optimal results, LAUSD should work with individual schools to provide best
value solutions to their actual technology needs. School choice is key, as parents,

43 An External Representative noted that there may be important perceptions among students

regarding a certain devices status as a toy, on the one hand, or a work tool, on the other. See, Why
Some Schools Are Selling All Their iPads, Meghan E. Murphy, The Atlantic, August 5, 2014

72

teachers, and principals can all offer useful input on matching the tools a school
offers with the developmental levels and educational needs of its students44. Finally,
different devices and device distributions may be better suited to different activities.
For example, a school may find that one-to-one mobile devices are best for its
classroom instruction, but that shared desktop devices work better for testing.45
LAUSD missed an opportunity to evaluate the use of different devices at its schools
before embarking on the CCTP. It is imperative that LAUSD conduct insightful and
timely evaluations of the technology options it has deployed in Phases 1, 2 and 1L, in
order to inform school technology choices for any future Phases.
Certain schools within LAUSD may be ready to pilot a partial or complete bring-
your-own-device environment now or in the near future. LAUSD should take
advantage of such a learning opportunity.
Request for Proposal (RFP) Requirements

Findings
There were a number of bidder qualifications included in RFP #1118, including:

Proposers shall possess a minimum of two years experience developing or


implementing K-12 learning solutions for mobile devices; and

Proposers shall have substantial experience in a lead role in simultaneously


rolling out a minimum of 10,000 fully configured devices to multiple sites.

Any Proposer not capable of performing the contract cannot, by definition, become a
responsible bidder. It is unclear what LAUSDs objective was in including
additional minimum bidder quality requirements, as opposed to simply including
them in the scoring rubric.
LAUSDs specifications for RFP #1118 deviated from the published Hardware
Purchasing Guidelines of SBAC in requiring that screens have a 10-inch multi-touch
display capable of operating with a stylus. Mr. Chandler told the Committee that
the multi-touch display specification would not, in and of itself, have ruled out all
laptops and netbooks. However, no netbook or laptop with those capabilities, in
fact, proposed. Without any evidence that the screen requirement was chosen in
order to fulfill a reasonably perceived need of LAUSD, LAUSD risked creating an
appearance that such specification may have been included for an improper anti-

44 In this regard, an External Representative suggested that special considerations should be made

for elementary schools that include a SRLDP or are in close proximity to an Early Education Center
(EEC).
45 An External Representative suggested that giving schools choices would also increase buy-in,

which the Committee had learned was considered an important factor in determining the success of
CCTP implementation.

73

competitive purpose. Similarly, when LAUSD embarked upon procurement for


Phase 1L, RFP #14034 included a combination of specifications that no Chromebook
could satisfy. However, in that case, LAUSD realized that this was overly restrictive
and issued a second RFP for Phase 1L, RFP #14047, in order to allow for a
Chromebook option. The Committee commends Procurement for recognizing this
impediment to competition and moving quickly to overcome it.
Among other things, RFP #1118 required that the content be originally designed
using the CCSS and not retrofitted, repurposed, or re-aligned as an after-thought.
This choice may have limited the field of potential proposers, without any hard
evidence that the requirement provided a benefit to LAUSD that outweighed the
possible limitation. To the extent this characteristic was advantageous, it would
presumably have been reflected in the curriculum scores.
For the Phase 1L procurements, LAUSD revised the minimum curriculum
requirements with respect to depth of CCSS alignment. Addendum No. 1 to RFP
#14034 eliminated the requirement (previously included in both RFP #1118 and
RFP #14034) that content be originally designed using the CCSS and not retrofitted,
repurposed, or re-aligned as an after-thought. Instead, the Phase 1L content was
required to tightly adhere to the CCSS for Mathematics and ELA (this revised
language was also used in RFP #14047 for the Chromebooks). This change in
minimum requirements seems like a clear improvement, replacing an excessive
minimum requirement with one that is tightly aligned to LAUSDs needs and
potentially allows for greater competition and an increased variety of curriculum
options for its students.
It is impossible to determine to what extent the field of proposers was limited as a
result of minimum requirements that went beyond (or perhaps just away from)
LAUSDs actual minimum requirements for the initial CCTP procurement. Another
example of a minimum requirement, which potentially impacted competition, was
that of the minimum warranty period under RFP #1118. LAUSD reduced the
minimum warranty period from five years to three years at the BAFO stage.46 It is
certainly possible that the five-year warranty requirement may have deterred some
prospective vendors from becoming Proposers in the first place, or may have caused
others to adjust their pricing or other features (to the detriment of their proposals
attractiveness) in order to be able to absorb the risk of a five-year warranty. An
inherent risk in making such a change in specifications after the field has already
been reduced to three finalists is that it opens the door to the appearance of
manipulation.

46 Curiously, of the three finalists invited to submit a BAFO, the one that had initially scored the

highest (Arey Jones B, featuring a Dell Latitude 10 tablet and Pearson curriculum) never had its BAFO
scored.

74

Recommendations
LAUSD should be vigilant that its procurement process is as open, fair, and
evidence-based as possible.
LAUSD staff, prospective vendors and the public should have the opportunity to
question whether any aspect of an RFP is well designed to identify the proposal or
proposals best aligned with LAUSDs real interests.
LAUSD should generally let the scoring system score proposals, and only establish
as minimum requirements those that are actually minimally acceptable. Otherwise,
the minimum requirements could appear in retrospect to have been designed to
force a certain result.
Best value cannot be considered in a vacuum, but rather depends on the actual
needs of the consumer. LAUSD should be careful to avoid including provisions in
RFPs that could appear to be devices to manipulate the outcome and do not appear
to tightly adhere to the needs for which it is procuring. Extraneous minimum
requirements in an RFP can discourage potential proposers who might have best-
value solutions for LAUSD from proposing. Such requirements could appear to be
designed to defeat the competitive nature of the procurement process by favoring a
particular vendor or product that is not the best-value for LAUSD. A better approach
may be to include as minimum requirements only those specifications deemed vital
to fundamental functionality. Features that are not essential, but might be
preferred, may be better accounted for by the scoring rubric, rather than added as
additional minimum requirements.
In procurement, whenever LAUSD determines to change any material provision of a
RFP, it ought to clearly communicate such change to vendors and afford a
reasonable opportunity for all potential proposers to react to such change.
Otherwise, such changes can make the bidding process appear arbitrary or
predetermined.
LAUSD should consider requiring some formal review of RFPs over a certain dollar
threshold.
Choice of Scoring Rubric

Findings
Among other things, RFP #1118 provided that optional items would be scored as a
tie-breaker. This would not, in and of itself, have been objectionable; provided that
Proposers were advised of this. However, the optional items begin to take on a
different status if the scoring system were such as would virtually ensure a tie.
Since the optional items were presumably not what LAUSD was primarily looking
for, they could appear to favor certain bidders over others in ways that do not
advance the interests of LAUSD.

75

It would appear that there was little realistic chance of not having a tie under the
original scoring rubric, given that market prices would likely be competitive,
proposer experience was mandated and warranty, training and delivery schedules
were more or less prescribed in the RFP. Eliminating those items would leave only
39% of the score on which to really differentiate, and a tie was defined as final
scores within 10 points of each other. While it is unclear whether this concern over
lack of meaningful differentiation was recognized, the March 20, 2013 Addendum to
RFP #1118 revised the scoring rubric to delete the pricing item (initially worth 30%
of the total score) and to increase the weight of the specifications of work from 60%
to 90%. Even so, a 10-point spread is arguably rather extensive for a tie, and, in
fact, the top five Proposers original scores were all within 10 points of each other
(66.0 to 74.6). Nonetheless, the fourth and fifth highest scoring proposals which
were theoretically tied with the leaders were not invited to submit their BAFOs.
Recommendation
In procurement, the scoring rubric should be clearly and reasonably related to
LAUSDs actual needs. Whenever LAUSD determines to change its scoring
mechanism (or any other material provision of a RFP), it ought to communicate such
change transparently to vendors and afford a reasonable opportunity for all
potential proposers to react to such change. Justification(s) for changes in the
scoring rubrics should also be publicly transparent to promote trust.
Bundling Curriculum and Device

Findings
It was asked why Apple was allowed to make the curricular choice and not LAUSDs
instructional staff. The concern expressed by this question is real that LAUSD gave
up a measure of control by bundling Grade K-12 ELA and Grade K-8 Math curricula
together with devices in one RFP. The requirement of RFP #1118 that proposals
must be fully inclusive of the entire scope of work, and that LAUSD would not accept
partial proposals, may have acted to further limit the field of potential bidders. Such
requirements, in the aggregate, ceded LAUSDs ability to select the various hardware
and curricular components a la carte to the limited universe of Proposers with the
size and industry presence to meet the substantial minimum qualifications.
On the other hand, LAUSD may have had good reason to seek an integrated device
and content package. Rather than ceding control, this bundling could also be seen as
recruiting third party proposers to do LAUSDs initial research and integration leg-
work for it. Among other things, it forecloses the ability of LAUSDs contract
counter-parties from each claiming the other is at fault for any problems of
compatibility that might arise. In any event, LAUSD had a number of competing
interests with respect to the decision whether to bundle or choose components
piece-meal. While it may be tempting to criticize the bundling decision in hindsight
as having been an obstacle for valuable educational technologies owned by less
dominant market participants, the choice was not entirely unreasonable.

76

Recommendations
Because of the impact that LAUSD purchases have on students and school sites and
the use of public funds to make those purchases, the reasoning behind the
purchasing decision(s) should be available for clear articulation to the public.
LAUSD must be willing to be transparent and highly vocal about the reasoning
behind significant purchases. Going forward, LAUSD would be well served to
publicly address the issue of curricula uniformity versus school choice of curricula.
Although devices and curricula were bundled together in the CCTP-related RFPs, it
was encouraging that LAUSD included a requirement that the curricula be
compatible with multiple platforms. LAUSD should be careful not to unreasonably
limit its future technology options by the decisions it makes now. Three years after
purchase, the initial CCTP technology will be LAUSDs legacy system. LAUSD should
seek to have as few barriers as possible to changing platforms and/or software, in
the event that better options are available at that time, which is highly likely, given
the rapid rate of change in technology.
Conflicts of Interest

Findings
At the Committees February 6, 2014 meeting, LAUSDs Ethics Officer, Ms. Vargas,
presented the Committee with an overview of LAUSDs ethics system. Ms. Vargas
described LAUSDs goal regarding ethics as promoting LAUSDs status as a trusted
organization. She said the guiding principles of this effort were having an open
playing field, transparency and fairness. The Committee learned that the Ethics
Office staff had been cut from six to two personnel and with a larger staff could be
involved in more LAUSD decisions.
Although Dr. Deasy recused himself from consideration of the procurement,
concerns have been raised in the press47 that his interests in Apple48 may have
nonetheless influenced LAUSDs choice of device for CCTP. Furthermore, LAUSDs
Deputy Superintendent at the time of the procurement that resulted in the Apple-
Pearson contract, Dr. Jaime Aquino, was a former employee of Americas Choice, an
education research company acquired by Pearson in 2010.49
In response to the Committees questions regarding the selection process, Mr.
Tucker stated that Dr. Aquino had no influence in choosing Pearson. Mr. Tucker also

47 For example, see Dianne Ravitchs blog from October 21, 2013.
48 In addition to Dr. Deasys ownership of Apple stock, he was featured in an Apple commercial

presented in January 2012 in which he said we had decided to adopt iPad technology, as we were
trying to provide ways for increasing student engagement. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP8yTsQLK_w
49 See iPads on the Way for Education Overhaul, Barbara Jones, Los Angeles Daily News, July 19, 2013.

77

stated that the selection panels scored Apple the highest, and that the Executive
Committee (of which Dr. Aquino was a member) just approved to move from one
step to the next and never had anything rescored or changed.
Mr. Tucker advised the Committee that, for the Phase 1L procurement, LAUSD
would have zero-tolerance for reviewers having any shareholdings or interests in
vendors or subcontractors. Of course, this begged the question of whether any
shareholders were on the review committee for RFP #1118, which resulted in the
Apple-Pearson contract. Without answering the question, Mr. Tucker stated that the
rules allow de minimus share ownership and other interests, but that LAUSD was
instead going to use zero-tolerance for the Phase 1L RFP.
The Committee also explored potential conflicts related to gifts from Apple or
Pearson to LAUSD decision-makers. Mr. Hovatter reported to the Committee that
some LAUSD staff received devices from Apple at a Pearson-sponsored conference
they attended (along with all other attendees), but that this occurred prior to RFP
#1118 and that any devices they received would have been LAUSDs, rather than the
recipients personal, property. Whether or not any such gift gave rise to an actual
conflict of interest,50 it potentially created the appearance of a conflict51, which did
not further LAUSDs objective of being a trusted organization. Mr. Hovatter stressed
that LAUSD was seeking to avoid even these appearances of conflict for the Phase 1L
procurement.
At the January 7, 2014 Committee Meeting, Mr. Hovatter stated that LAUSDs Office
of Inspector General was conducting a review related to the Apple-Pearson
procurement. The Inspector Generals report was mentioned in a newspaper article.
52 Although the conclusion stated in the newspaper article was that criminal charges
would not be filed, the article stated that LAUSDs Office of Inspector Generals
report made the following allegations which are concerning both in their
description, and in LAUSDs failure to address them to the Committee or the public
in general:

A member of the Proposal review panel owned a moderate amount of Apple


stock, did not timely disclose that fact, and was allowed to remain on the
panel even after such disclosure; and

Pearson had gotten into trouble for allegedly using its charitable foundation
to generate business for its for-profit wing, ultimately settling with the New


50 And, arguably, it would have been a functional conflict of interest, if the recipient wrongfully

believed the device was his or her personal property.


51 See LA Unified Staff Received Free iPad Before Contract, Annie Gilbertson, KPCC, January 7, 2014.
52 See D.A. Says No Charges Warranted Over L.A. Schools iPad Contract, Howard Blume, Los Angeles

Times, April 21, 2014.

78

York State Attorney General for $7.7 million in December 2013.53


Recommendations
Use governance procedures that insulate transactions from even the appearance of
conflicts of interest. Sound corporate governance procedures for considering
transactions in which a member of management has an interest may vary
somewhat, depending on context, but generally consist of two parts:

First, the interested party must fully disclose his or her interest to the other
decision makers; and

Second, the disinterested decision makers must approve the transaction.

It is preferable to err on the side of caution. If an interest is so attenuated that it


would not be deemed to create a conflict of interest, then the disinterested persons
can best assess that, after full disclosure. Furthermore, if a decision would not have
been approved but for the vote of an interested party, it casts doubt on claims that
such partys interest did not influence their decision.
Whether or not an official is actually influenced by a relationship to a counterparty,
such relationship can cause the public to view irregularities, regardless of how
innocent, as manipulation rather than imprecision.
LAUSD would be well served by continuing to have zero-tolerance for reviewers
having any shareholdings or interests in vendors or subcontractors. In addition,
LAUSD should be vigilant about the appearance of conflict that can arise when
LAUSD personnel attend conferences and receive valuable gifts to LAUSD that are
designated for their use.54
To lay to rest any Apple-Pearson procurement questions that may have been
resolved by the Inspector Generals review and avoid any suspicion generated by
lack of transparency, LAUSD should consider publishing the Office of Inspector
Generals report, rather than leave its public description to a newspaper article.
In light of the number of highly impactful decisions that are made by LAUSD, the
number of Ethics Office personnel (2) should be increased to allow them to
participate in a greater number of high impact and/or high profile LAUSD decisions.

53 See Educational Publishers Charity, Accused of Seeking Profits, Will Pay Millions, Javier C.

Hernndez, The New York Times, December 12, 2013.


54 An External Representative suggested that LAUSD consider a policy that prohibits LAUSD

personnel from attending conferences or activities where third parties, who may be LAUSD vendors
or their affiliates, are sponsoring any portion. To the extent LAUSD believes staff participation in any
such activity would be beneficial to LAUSD, it could deploy its own funds to avoid any appearance of
undue influence.

79

Scoring Unfinished Content

Findings
The Committee heard somewhat inconsistent testimony regarding the completeness
of the Pearson curriculum. At the October 22, 2013, Committee meeting, the Chair
requested that Mr. Loera come to the next meeting prepared to answer how much
curriculum Pearson has delivered and when it would deliver the rest, with
references to any controlling language in the contract. At the January 7, 2014
Committee meeting, Mr. Loera stated that, while the full curriculum was complete,
LAUSD was only allowed to access it digitally according to the timeline set forth in
the contract. When the Pearson curriculum demonstration was finally given on
March 19, 2014 the digital curriculum was still far from complete, and that was after
nearly a full year of additional development from when it was included in proposals
responding to RFP #1118.
The Committee repeatedly asked to see what the review panel would have seen of
Pearsons curriculum when scoring it and how complete the digital curriculum was
at the time it was scored. At the January 7, 2013 Committee meeting, Mr. Tucker
offered to provide the Committee with the actual score sheets that were used, with
comments on the side, but said the demonstration devices, themselves, had been
returned. At the same meeting, Mr. Tucker confirmed that, although review
committee members would have also read the proposers written response to the
RFP, the review committee actually scored only what was loaded on the
demonstration devices.
In response to questions about Pearsons curriculum being incomplete,
Procurement noted that RFP #1118 was issued in March 2013, at a time when no
vendor would have been able to provide a full curriculum. The lack of availability of
certain publishers criteria was made more acute by LAUSDs requirement that
content be originally designed with the CCSS as its basis, rather than re-aligned. It
would indeed have been difficult to look at a paper version of a curriculum and
decide what has the most promise in digital form, and even more difficult if the
reviewers only reviewed a non-existent digital version and did not have access to
any paper version.
The Committee heard public comment from David Tokofsky, AALA Strategist and
former LAUSD Boardmember, who spoke at the January 7, 2014 Committee
meeting. Mr. Tokofsky alleged that Pearsons Math curriculum included Envision
Math, redesigned or re-purposed in violation of RFP #1118. He also stated that
Pearsons ELA curriculum was aligned to the national Common Core market and not
to Californias standards, noting that the American Revolution was embedded in
Pearsons Grade 11 ELA materials even though California had moved it to the Grade
8 curriculum. Mr. Tokofsky further alleged that Pearsons Math Curriculum was
really just a digitized textbook, which was what Instruction had said LAUSD did not
want. Given that these were relatively specific concerns addressing some

80

fundamental aspects of LAUSDs curriculum specifications and the proposal scoring,


the Committee would have liked to have been able to review evidence to contradict
these allegations.
Recommendations
When scoring digital curriculum for a large scale purchase in which the digital
curriculum is not accessible to the public, procurement would be well served to
somehow document what was viewed by the scoring committee. Procurement
should investigate the feasibility of purchasing one copy of the curriculum or
creating .pdf copies of the curriculum if it is only available digitally. Procurement
should ensure that originals and copies of the scoring sheets showing how the
curriculum was scored are kept safe and easily available upon a Public Records Act
request. In addition, LAUSD should make efficient use of the opportunity to present
to BOE committees information and evidence. Such transparency inspires public
trust.
III.F. Curriculum Requirements
Digital and Dynamic Curriculum

Findings
On March 19, 2014, Pearson gave a closed-door presentation to various Board
offices and their invited guests, which included a number of External
Representatives, in the LAUSD Board Room. The discussion was moderated,
ostensibly in order to avoid cone of silence infractions under RFP #14034, which
had been issued on March 1, 2014. Because of the moderation, there was no way for
the audience to be certain that questions were not, in fact, being filtered on some
other basis. The presentation revealed that there were numerous lessons and even
entire units missing across every grade level.
What the Committee reviewed of the winning curriculum (even after nearly a year
of additional development) did not appear to satisfy LAUSDs stated minimum
requirements. Despite RFP #1118s requirement that the content be delivered
dynamically and not just a digitized textbook, much of the material demonstrated at
the March 19, 2014, Pearson curriculum presentation was actually not made
possible by the technology and at best may have had some enhanced delivery. The
curriculum was structured in a purely chapter/sub-chapter linear progression. A
Pearson representative stated that their program replaces the textbook. However,
there was no indication that it was highly interactive, computer adaptive and fully
digital.
In RFP #1118, LAUSD required that the curriculum be delivered digitally and
dynamically. While no one is disagreeing that digital and dynamic curriculum may
be engaging and possibly beneficial for students, it has not been proven to the
Committee that digital and dynamically delivered curriculum is a requirement for

81

student success with the CCSS or that the Pearson curriculum met that
requirement55.
Recommendations
LAUSD should provide clear evidence that digital and dynamic curriculum really is
immediately necessary for students to succeed with the CCSS. LAUSD should
provide clear evidence that the Pearson curriculum meets the digital and dynamic
requirement in light of questions that have arisen and remain about the curriculum.
No Repurposed or Realigned Content

Findings
Another procurement requirement for RFP #1118 that resulted in the Apple-
Pearson contract was that the content be built from the ground up and not
repurposed. However, during the March 19, 2014 presentation, the first sample
lesson presented (known as the locker problem) was, as introduced by a Pearson
representative, a classic problem. In fact, that problem was structured exactly as it
would have been in a technology-free mathematics curriculum, and relied on
students using non-device resources. A Pearson representative said that their
content had replaced the textbook, not the teacher. However, the only thing
particularly technological about the Pearson version of the locker problem was that
it was introduced by a video clip rather than a teacher. Pearson claimed that theirs
was the first system that integrated instruction, curriculum and assessment.
However, a certificated instructor in the audience noted that he had been receiving
similarly integrated materials from publishers for a long time.
During a Committee meeting, Mr. Loera was asked what evidence existed that
repurposed curriculum was not effective. Mr. Loera replied that there must be a
deep alignment in order to provide equity and access to high-level rigorous
curriculum and content. The Committee also asked how LAUSD would know
whether curricula were repurposed or not. Mr. Loera said that achievethecore.org
provided tools for evaluating alignment of materials with the CCSS, and that LAUSD
also looked for stray references to old standards, which would disqualify a proposed
curriculum. By requiring that curriculum not be repurposed or realigned, LAUSD
was essentially limiting the number of curriculum vendors that could compete in the
RFP. This limitation would have made sense if there were clear evidence that

55 Staff was asked to elaborate on how LAUSD planned to provide hard copies of instructional

materials to students whose parents declined to allow the device to go home. The Committee was
told that Pearson would provide printable .pdf files. On the one hand, Instruction argued for the
impossibility of equivalence between dynamic digital content, which is supposedly necessary to the
Common Core (and a minimum requirement of RFP #1118), and static, digitized or .pdf content
which it suggested could not support 21st Century learning. On the other hand, Instruction asserted
that any opt-outs could be given printouts of the curriculum that would presumably be
Williams/Valenzuela equivalent. If only digital and dynamic curriculum meets the needs of LAUSDs
students, it is not clear how printable .pdf files would be acceptable equivalents.

82

repurposed or realigned curriculum was not effective or would hinder student


success with the CCSS. However, the Committee was not provided with such
evidence. In addition, the Pearson curriculum seen at the March 19, 2014
presentation did not seem to be significantly different than what might be delivered
in a textbook other than being on a device and including video clips.
At the urging of the Committee, LAUSD did away with this non-repurposed and non-
realigned requirement for the Phase 1L procurement. RFP #14034 was amended by
Addendum No. 1 on March 4, 2014 to replace the originally designed language
with a requirement more closely aligned with LAUSDs real needs that the
curriculum tightly adhere to [the relevant CCSS].
Recommendations
Barring evidence that repurposed or realigned curriculum unequivocally hinders
students success with the CCSS, LAUSD should continue to require curriculum that
tightly adheres to the CCSS. This allows for curriculum that already exists and
meets the CCSS appropriately to compete in procurements. The selection
committee and scoring rubric can then identify the curriculum that best meets the
needs of LAUSDs students.
If LAUSD requires curricula to not be repurposed or realigned, LAUSD content
reviewers should, ideally, review the content itself for quality and CCSS alignment,
rather than rely on shortcuts such as stray references to old standards to rule out
potential content.
Differentiation of Instruction

Findings
At the Committees January 7, 2014 meeting, Mr. Loera said that advanced students
would not be expected to move ahead in subject matter, but rather to delve deeper
with grade-level content. However, it is unclear how the devices or the Pearson
curricula can assist in such deeper learning. Also, Mr. Loera never defined depth
in this context nor provided the Committee with any pedagogical explanation for
why depth should be the sole differentiation for advanced students to the exclusion,
for example, of complexity and acceleration. At the same meeting, Mr. Loera stated
that differentiation for Special Education and ELL students remained, and always
had been, the teachers responsibility. He asserted that the devices would afford
more flexibility to do this differentiating than paper and pencil materials, though no
elaboration was offered. The Chair even asked for the Committee to receive a
demonstration of the device reading passages of text back in other languages56, but
this was never provided to the Committee.
At the March 19, 2014 presentation, the Pearson representatives touted the Concept

56 Such a feature could be a useful tool for ELLs, if used appropriately.

83

Corner feature of their content as a source for students to gain exposure to some
deeper elements of the common core math. Unfortunately, this feature was not
integrated with the curriculum itself. No matter what lesson or Unit (or grade-level)
one was accessing when entering the Concept Corner, it would take them to a
generic welcome page. It was unclear how much content was available in the
Concept Corner or whether this aspect of the Pearson content was still under
development. The Concept Corner was also very slow to load (at least in the LAUSD
Board Room) and relied on Wi-Fi, to which many students may not have access
outside of the classroom.
Recommendations
Mr. Loera may be correct that the devices and curriculum will aid in differentiation
of instruction, but for the Committee to serve its public function, its questions
regarding how the technology aids in differentiation should also be answered. We
recommend that a demonstration of how the devices and curriculum will aid in
differentiation be provided to the Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Committee. In addition, LAUSD should provide teachers with PD on how to use the
devices and curriculum to differentiate instruction.
Early Education

Findings
At the September 25, 2013 Committee meeting, Dr. Rabinowitz was asked why
Grades K-2 were not included in the SBAC assessments, and he replied that this was
due to a lack of federal funding to develop assessments for those grades. However,
Dr. Rabinowitz added that their digital library would include supports for
kindergarten and the early grades to help teachers.
As LAUSD has an extraordinarily high concentration of ELLs in grades kindergarten
through third, it is imperative that LAUSD develop and/or identify and adopt
appropriate supports for these populations, and not necessarily rely on SBAC or
others who may lack the motivation and/or resources to do so for it.
It is concerning that LAUSD has not revealed any plan for its use of technology or its
approach to the CCSS in early education.
Recommendations
LAUSD should develop a thoughtful plan for using technology and preparing for
CCSS in early education. Such plan should be carefully designed in consultation with
experts and veteran early childhood educators to prepare students for the CCSS
without impairing other important elements of student learning.57 The BOEs

57 See The Common Core State Standards: Caution and Opportunity for Early Childhood Education,

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), 2012, available at
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/11_CommonCore1_2A_rv2.pdf

84

Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Committee should review such plan.


Memory Consumption

Findings
The Committee also explored the issue of memory availability on the device with
only a partial curriculum.
At the October 22, 2013 Committee meeting, Mr. Loera stated that storage
limitations would prevent all curriculum for every grade level from being loaded on
the devices. At the Committees November 19, 2013 meeting, It was asked how
much memory the full Pearson curriculum would consume, with one member noting
that, even with the Pearson curriculum only partially loaded on her iPad, half of the
devices memory had been used58. Mr. Chandler said he would be able to provide an
analysis of device memory needs to the Committee and be able to say how much
room there would be for other applications and digital content after the full Pearson
curriculum had been installed on the iPads.
RFP #1118 required a minimum of 20GB usable storage capacity for local files,
instructional apps, documents, books, etc. The Questions and Answers provided in
Addendum No. 2 to RFP #1118, issued on March 15, 2013, clarified that the devices
must offer 20GB of free storage capacity after OS and default OS applications have
been installed. While the RFP did not prescribe any maximum size for the curricular
content, presumably, a successful bidder would need to provide enough memory to
support the required functionalities and the curriculum included in its bid.
The Committee has not seen any indication that Apple, as part of its bid, informed
LAUSD of the amount of memory that would be consumed by the Pearson
curriculum, once complete. The RFP did not specifically request this information,
and no specific provision was made in the scoring rubric to award points for
additional unused memory.
Recommendations
LAUSD should determine what the actual memory requirements of the complete
Pearson curriculum (and other standard software) will be. If this does not leave
sufficient memory for LAUSDs intended use of the devices (including reasonable
flexibility for schools, teachers and parents to add their own apps), then LAUSD
should consider renegotiating to achieve memory enhancements.

58 We note that, unlike student iPads, the iPads provided to Committee Members and External

Representatives had the available curriculum (i.e. the highly limited demonstration lessons) loaded
for multiple grade levels.

85

III.G. Partnership Model


Findings
RFP #1118 was issued in March 2013, at a time when no vendor would have been
able to provide a full curriculum due to the lack of availability of certain publishers
criteria in combination with LAUSDs requirement that content be originally
designed with the CCSS as its basis, rather than realigned or repurposed. In effect,
one could look at the curriculum procurement as a process for LAUSD to choose a
curriculum-partner, rather than to choose an actual curriculum. Assuming LAUSDs
build-from-scratch curriculum imperative and the extremely compressed timeline
for one-to-one deployment, partnering with an established curriculum company
was a reasonable approach. However, there ought to be some clear benefits to
LAUSD from serving as a research and development partner. LAUSD ought to
receive some reasonable value from such a partnership. Otherwise, public
resources are being used to create a private product.
Similarly, LAUSD has provided the SBAC with material assistance in refining its
assessment products, without any tangible compensation. In both the pilot and
Field Test phases of the SBAC assessments, LAUSD did not receive any assessment
results. An SBAC representative informed the Committee that some surveying was
done in connection with how the technology and items on the test performed not
how the students performed on the test. While there was arguably some benefit to
LAUSD from participating in the Field Test, it remains unclear how much benefit
LAUSDs students and teachers derived from practice taking a test when there was
no way for them to get any feedback on what attributes of their performance
contributed, or will contribute, to positive or negative outcomes.
Recommendations
When engaging in a partnership, LAUSD should pursue and be able to clearly
articulate the benefits and value that LAUSD will obtain from the partnership, as
well as the reasonably foreseeable risks in such endeavor. In addition, when
partnering with a for-profit entity and providing research and development, LAUSD
should seek significant value for its contribution.
III.H. Security and Safety
Overview

Deputy Chief Santome reported to the Committee that LAUSDs approach to security
issues related to sending the devices home was primarily focused on protecting
LAUSDs students, not its inventory. LAUSD has sought to do this through a number
of safety and security initiatives introduced at various times throughout the course
of the 2013-14 school year:

86

Student training;

Communications directed to the community;

MDM and web-filtering;

Lock-it/Freeze-it/Track-it to thwart use of stolen devices and aid their


recovery; and

Coordination with local law enforcement and increasing safe passages


patrols around schools where devices are taken home.

Initially, LAUSDs student training with respect to safety and security consisted of
providing safety flyers to students advising them of certain dangers and suggesting
some safer practices. The Committee was advised that LAUSD was developing
lesson plans for each grade level (including an initial boot camp followed by digital
citizenship lessons embedded in regular lessons) in partnership with Common
Sense Media, and incorporating the input of veteran, grade-level educators, in
consultation with ITD and police.
Communications

Findings
LAUSDs communications to the community regarding device safety, have included
public service announcements on KLCS as well as more targeted communications
directed to pawn shops and other second hand retailers59 regarding recognizing and
reporting any stolen LAUSD devices they might encounter. Although LAUSD has
prepared some public service announcements (PSAs) related to cyber-safety
and/or digital citizenship, it was disappointing to learn that there was no budget for
this. As a result, these efforts have been limited to what KLCS can produce and
distribute using existing personnel.
Recommendations
Since a key element of LAUSDs safety/security plan is to get the word out that the
devices are for student use and LAUSD will vigorously pursue prosecution when
students are victimized in relation to the devices, it would make sense for LAUSD to
be more proactive and to dedicate an appropriate level of funding to these activities.
In addition, LAUSD should consider seeking assistance from LAUSD staff and
students in designing PSAs that would engage students and reach potential
criminals and consider appropriate messaging on LAUSDs transportation fleet.

59 Although the extent of LASPDs communications to second hand retailers was not specifically

discussed in Committee meetings, an External Representative noted that this outreach certainly
ought to include on-line retailers, such as eBay and Craigslist, where used technology of unknown
provenance may be sold.

87

Device Protection

Findings
After LAUSDs experience with student compromise of the MDM and LAUSD filtering
during the initial Phase 1 rollout, the MDM software was improved and upgraded.
By the end of the 2013-14 school year, LAUSD had implemented a more robust MDM
that included at-home web-filtering.
At its May 28, 2014 meeting, the Committee received a demonstration of the iPad
being remotely disabled, and it seemed that at least for devices that were turned
on, in North America, and connected to the internet LAUSDs Lock-it/Freeze-
it/Track-it system could render the device not functional. ITD reported to the
Committee that even third-party experts hired by LAUSD to try to circumvent the
new security features could not do so. However, as the qualifiers above suggest,
there remain holes of various sizes in LAUSDs Lock-it/Freeze-it/Track-it defense:

A device could be transported out of the United States;

A device could have some residual value even if its internet connectivity
were intentionally disabled to avoid detection; and

The secondary market for iPad parts could create opportunities for thieves to
capture some value even from disabled devices.

While it is reassuring that features were designed to make the devices unusable in
unauthorized hands, the weaknesses in Lock-it/Freeze-it/Track-it mentioned above
leave a measure of concern. Moreover, the fact that LASPD has not successfully
recovered any iPads stolen in burglaries reinforces this concern.
Deputy Chief Santome advised the Committee that device security and web filtering
are not the only issues, and that student safety training and parent education are
also critical.
Recommendations
LAUSD should continue to have IT experts and appropriately monitored students
attempt to defeat and bypass LAUSD security features, regularly, to identify and
address security weaknesses. LAUSD should continue to work with law
enforcement and the community to make the devices high risk/low reward for those
who should not have the devices. In the future, LAUSD may want to consider the
benefit of purchasing devices that do not have as much illegal resale value.
Safe-Passages

Findings
While LASPDs efforts to coordinate with law enforcement partners are

88

advantageous, it was troubling that the kind of extra safe-passages patrols used for
the device Take Home Test Pilot in May and June 2014 would not be sustainable
without hiring 80 additional LASPD officers, according to Deputy Chief Santomes
testimony.
Recommendations
LAUSD should determine ways to continue safe passages patrols to help protect its
students when they take valuable devices home with them. LAUSD should consider
hiring more officers.
LAUSD should seek to make public the agendas and/or minutes of meetings where
outside agencies demonstrate their commitment of support and collaboration with
LASPDs safe-passages program.
School Site Storage

Findings
In order to make theft of devices from school sites more difficult, LAUSD adopted a
protocol that, prior to devices being delivered to a school, among other things,
LASPD would conduct a physical assessment together with the Principal and
provide advice to the Principals in selecting safe rooms for device storage at the
school site. The Committee was told that, to the extent facilities improvements were
necessary to improve security, these could be made narrowly using bond funds for
CCTP.
Recommendations
LAUSD should continue to help Principals select safe rooms for device storage at
the school site and provide necessary facilities improvements.
RF Exposure

Findings
Public speakers at some Committee meetings raised concerns about potential harm
from wireless signal exposure, particularly for individuals who may suffer from
electrosensitivity.
Mr. Sterritt told the Committee that LAUSD had investigated the potential harms of
radio frequency (RF) radiation beginning with the installation of cell phone towers
near school sites. At that time, a precautionary standard of 0.1 microwatt/cm2
was established, which is a level 10,000 times lower than current regulatory
requirements. He said that LAUSD also engaged outside technical consultants
(U.R.S.) through an RFP process to review the current standards, and U.R.S.
determined that the existing standards were proper. Using those standards, the
specifications for the devices were developed and included in the RFP for the

89

devices themselves. He indicated that LAUSD was also looking ahead to prospective
keyboard and Bluetooth activity, to make sure exposures will remain in the safe
range.
Dr. Uyeda also addressed the Committee regarding RF exposure. She confirmed that
LAUSD had set a precautionary threshold in 2013 that is 10,000 times lower than
FCC recommended thresholds. She said that the technical specifications required in
procurement for the devices included RF limitations designed to maintain the
precautionary threshold. Dr. Uyeda reported that the World Health Organization
has described electrosensitivity as characterized by a variety of symptoms but that
there was no scientific basis to link symptoms to electromagnetic field exposure. Dr.
Uyeda also asserted that, from evidence gathered so far, there were no adverse
short- or long-term health effects from RF signals produced at bay stations (such as
a cell tower), and that wireless networks produce even lower RF signals.
Dr. Uyeda said LAUSD was tracking student health through health office visits and
would be be looking for trends that might be the result of wireless exposure. It was
asked how a student could be accommodated if they are, in fact, sensitive to RF
output. Dr. Uyeda said this would be handled similarly to other requests for
accommodation.
Public speakers at the Committees May 28, 2014 meeting included a teacher and
several students from Johnnie Cochran Jr. Middle School who complained of Wi-Fi
related health problems at their school. One student stated that many teachers
have been dying and our Assistant Principal died after the Wi-Fi was installed.
Others complained of headaches, nosebleeds and ear-bleeds. OEHS investigated
these claims and found that Wi-Fi exposures at Johnnie Cochran Jr. Middle School
were well below LAUSDs precautionary threshold. Moreover, the investigation
concluded that there have been no documented student cases of nose and ear bleeds
at Johnnie Cochran Jr. Middle School in the past school year.
As the health and safety of LAUSDs students are of paramount importance, the
Committee commends LAUSD for its prompt and continuing investigation of any
health risks that may be associated with LAUSDs Virtual Learning Complex, even
where such risks may appear extremely remote.
Recommendations
LAUSD must continue tracking student health through health office visits and
looking for trends that might be the result of wireless exposure. LAUSD should
provide informational materials for employees, parents and students who are
concerned about RF Exposure at the school site.

90

III.I Training
Overview

The Committee learned of wide discrepancies in quantity and quality of training


given to faculty and staff and especially parents with respect to the CCTP and the
devices. One problem with LAUSDs training plan may be that the work appears to
be being done independently by local school sites and divisions such as ESCs,
Instruction and the Parent Community Services Branch which may not be
coordinating their efforts most efficiently.

Professional Development

Findings
Although the contract with Apple-Pearson only required Pearson to provide one
training session per school, as of December 4, 2013, Pearson had completed 161
school visits and had scheduled another 22 school visits. The Committee was told
that some schools were visited more than others (e.g. Roosevelt once, but Westport
Heights 15 times) based on those schools requests for extra visits. This raised a
number of concerns for the Committee, which have not been clearly resolved:

While providing the additional free PD may have been a nice gesture by
Pearson, it may not be available in the context of a district-wide rollout, and
may foster a false sense of readiness.

It is unclear whether the additional PDs added novel supports or just


repeated lessons covered at prior PDs (although the generally positive
feedback cited by Mr. Loera would tend to support the former).

Is there any evidence that schools with more PD did better than the ones that
received less PD?

LAUSD ought to determine what kind of long-term systemic PD would be


optimal of course, since no follow-up visits are included in the contract, this
begs the question how much must LAUSD pay for this PD in the future?

Mr. Loera reported to the Committee that long-term substitute teachers received PD
together with regular teachers. He advised that day-to-day substitutes, on the other
hand, did not, and that LAUSD had not provided training for any classified staff not
even the Classified Instructional Aides, Special Education Aides or Teaching
Assistants, all of whom work directly with students. Mr. Loera advised that,
although there were no district-wide plans for such trainings, school sites were free
to use their budgets for that if they wished.
Perceived quality, quantity and breadth of PD were some aspects of Phase 1 that
were probed by the some of the data gathering and evaluation efforts that have been

91

done so far. The UTLA survey found that 63% of respondents reported that they did
not receive adequate training. A number of comments gathered through that UTLA
survey suggested that the teacher training should be tiered, to better align with the
actual technological literacy of each teacher. Even though Pearson was providing
more PD than LAUSD had contracted for, the UTLA survey found that 45% of
respondents were dissatisfied with the Pearson training and said more PD is
needed. Even after upwards of 20 hours of training, 81% of teachers surveyed did
not agree that LAUSD provided adequate training. In the AALA survey, respondents
average rating of the Helpfulness of District-provided training to effectively
implement the iPad program was 2.83 on a scale of one to four. The AALA survey
results also included a number of PD-related answers to a free-response question
regarding topics missing from training. This list may be of use in planning future
trainings.
The Committee had asked whether schools with more Pearson PD were better
implementing the iPad rollout. While it may be too soon to identify any effects of
varying parameters in implementation on student achievement, it should not be too
soon to know whether different parameters in implementation affected
implementation itself. There was some indication from Dr. Lims report that LAUSD
may be in the process of asking teachers how prepared they felt and students how
clear the direction was that they received from teachers. Given that Phases 2 and 1L
are rolling out in Fall 2014, there is a clear benefit to quickly resolving what
variables in implementation may be responsible for differences in those teacher and
student perceptions, making such findings public, and adjusting the rollouts PD,
training schedules, and content appropriately.
Recommendations
LAUSD should develop comprehensive teacher, substitute teacher, classified staff,
student and parent training, seeking out and distributing best practices60. The UTLA
and ALAA surveys as well as the Office of Data and Accountabilitys Interim Report
all suggested that teachers could benefit from more CCTP-related PD. One
recommendation to promote efficiency is that teacher training should be tiered, to
better align with the actual technological literacy of each teacher. LAUSD ought to
determine what kind of long-term systemic PD would be optimal and communicate
this to all of its schools. Substitute teachers should receive CCTP-related PD so they
can implement teacher lesson plans and assist students. Classified staff working
with students and/or parents should also be provided with PD so they can assist
students and respond productively to students and parents technology-related
questions.

60 An External Representative commented that Schools should be given the opportunity to review

available modules and trainings and choose those that best meet the needs and experiences of their
students, parents and teachers.

92

Student Training

Findings
The Committee has not seen much data on either:

The extent of training actually provided to students in Phase 1; or

Feedback regarding the effectiveness and weaknesses of any elements of


such training.

Mr. Loera was asked about the planned quantity of digital citizenship lessons, and
he advised that it would not be based on hours of instruction, but on behaviors
evident in students use of the technology. Ms. Lucas said LAUSD is working with
Common Sense Media to develop plans for each grade level, including an initial
boot camp followed by digital citizenship lessons embedded in regular lessons.
Recommendations
Student training should include, at the very least, training on proper care of devices,
security and safety, use of LAUSD-provided content, and digital citizenship. The
Committee was advised that LAUSD was developing lesson plans for each grade
level in partnership with Common Sense Media, and incorporating the input of
veteran, grade-level educators, in consultation with ITD. These seem like good
strategies. Indeed, the Chair has commented positively on the Common Sense Media
lessons that she has seen. However, the Committee would like to see LAUSD have a
comprehensive student CCTP training plan versus have student training left
completely to school site discretion. Furthermore, there would be value in making
the extent of this training public, as that could allay some fears that devices are
being given to some students who are wholly unprepared and it could allow
constructive input from the community. The Committee would urge LAUSD to
establish and publish a comprehensive student CCTP training plan before it
distributes additional one-to-one devices in Phases 2 and 1L.
Parent Education

The Committee noted that LAUSDs parent education efforts had been focused
mostly on why CCTP was important and not on how to use devices or how to assist
students with content. Ms. Lucas concurred in such assessment, and stated that
LAUSD expected schools to provide such parent education in a variety of ways
across the district. After hearing CETFs presentation to the Committee regarding
its parent training research and experience, Ms. Lucas was asked whether LAUSD
was directing any parent training materials and procedures or otherwise
conducting quality control. Ms. Lucas reported that there are modules and
handbooks for schools to use. While there may be somewhat different concerns at
different schools, parent education seems like an area that would benefit from
central guidance from LAUSD as far as subject matter and pedagogical tips.

93

A related area of concern is the extent of parental liability for loss of, or damage to,
devices. Although some of the early versions of the parent acknowledgement form
may have imposed greater parental liability, LAUSD ultimately concluded that
parent liability with respect to devices should be coextensive with that provided
under the Education Code section 48904. At the Committees February 6, 2014
meeting, Mr. McNair advised the Committee that the same Education Code section
48904 applied to parent liability for the iPads and for textbooks. The standard
under such law was one of willful misconduct. Mr. McNair also suggested that,
since school sites traditionally made these determinations with respect to
textbooks, presumably they would for the iPads, too. Mr. McNair also explained that
the acknowledgement form is a notice, not a contract, and that the parents would be
equally liable if their student willfully destroyed an iPad, whether or not they signed
the form. It is critically important that LAUSD honor the wishes of parents that do
not opt-in, as a parent would be reasonably outraged if held responsible for damage
to a device even for malicious damage when the parents never said they wanted
the device sent home.
At the March 5, 2014 Committee meeting, Mr. Urgiles gave a presentation on CETFs
School2Home program aimed at integrating the use of technology into teaching and
learning. Mr. Urgiles stressed that CETFs program employed lots of PD, including
six hours of parent education, which parents would complete in order to earn a
device for their students to take home61. CETFs parent education piece covered use
and care of devices, on-line safety, and showed parents how to access the student
information system. Mr. Urgiles described CETFs strategy of introducing devices in
the classroom without sending them home. He said this allowed the teachers to
excite the students about the devices and to recruit the students to advocate for
their parents to attend the parent trainings so they may bring the devices home. He
indicated that CETF had been able to achieve greater than 80% parent participation.
Mr. Urgiles said that CETF pays about $12,000 to $15,000 per school, and he
provided the Committee with a more complete schedule of program costs, which
included the school sites costs (such as teachers time serving as facilitators)62. He
added that some schools leverage resources creatively by using volunteer top
students from local adult schools, and stressed that CETFs goal was to work with
schools to set things up and then go away.63

61 Mr. Urgiles said that some schools choose to allow students to take devices home even if their

parents do not complete the training, so as not to punish the students.

62 The financial data emailed by Mr. Urgiles included totals of approximately: $928,000 for Muir MS

(Grades 6-8, with 1,272 students): $1.2 million for Stevenson MS (Grades 6-8, with 1,945 students);
$1.9 million aggregate for SFIAM, Vaugh & Maclay (Grades 6-8, with 1,784 students); and $628,000
for Madison MS (Grades 6-8, with 600 students). That was about $1,000/student for the smaller
schools and $700/student for the big ones, including about $412 for student devices. These expenses
include devices, as well as operational costs, but not infrastructure.
63 In a July 2, 2014 letter from CETF to LAUSD, included as Appendix A34 hereto, Mr. Urgiles

describes LAUSDs unproductive response to CETFs proposal to partner with LAUSD to assist CCTP

94

The Committee did not see evidence that any training was being prepared by LAUSD
for Principals in determining willful misconduct with respect to iPads, in the
context of assessing parent liability for loss or damage.
Recommendations
While school autonomy is a worthy goal, allowing schools to determine if they want
to fund additional PD for staff, including classified staff, and parents could lead to
disparities in trainings and training amounts which could result in significant
disparities in student success. Close monitoring of PD offered and student
achievement is necessary. Schools should have a chance to review any training
modules and handbooks prior to Phase 3 commencing.
Without clear central guidance, it is imperative that LAUSD keep careful track of the
data on how parents are treated to ensure that the treatment of parents in cases of
willful misconduct leading to loss or damage is equal and equitable across LAUSD.
It would also be useful for LAUSD to avail itself of research already done by third
parties, such as the parent training best practices that CETF has thoroughly
researched. CETFs parent training model, which promotes parent engagement and
covers use and care of devices, on-line safety, and shows parents how to access the
student information system was impressive. LAUSD should seek to provide parent
education of similar depth and scope.
III.J. Discipline
Findings
There were several questions surrounding LAUSDs plan for ensuring consistent
appropriate discipline related to misuse of technology. At its September 25, 2013
meeting, it was asked what would the ultimate consequences be of any progressive
discipline matrix with respect to infractions involving technology. The Committee
noted that, if the iPad becomes equivalent to a textbook at some point, then LAUSD
may not be able to take it away as a consequence. A Board Informative from Matt
Hill, Chief Strategy Officer, and Mr. Chandler, dated September 24, 2013, stated that
a universal set of progressive disciplinary actions has been developed for students
that remove M.D.M. and violate the acceptable use policy. At that time, the
Committee requested to see that discipline matrix, even if a new one was then under
development. On October 22, 2013, Mr. Chandler told the Committee that he would
bring information regarding bullying and LAUSDs Acceptable Use Policy in the
future.64 At the Committees January 7, 2014 meeting, Ms. Lucas asserted that the

parent engagement. In order to avoid unnecessarily generating ill will among its prospective (and
existing) partners, LAUSD should strive for more timely and transparent communications.
64 See slides presented to the November 19, 2013 Committee meeting, included in Appendix A17

hereto.

95

CCTP team determined no separate discipline matrix was necessary, but that they
were in the process of designing an intervention matrix and school memo. At the
Committees April 24, 2014 meeting, Mr. Loera said the intervention matrix was not
ready to be publicly released yet, and, when the Chair asked when it would be
available, Ms. Lucas replied that it would be by the beginning of the 2014-15 school
year.
Recommendations
To ensure appropriate and fair discipline across LAUSD, the intervention matrix
should be published as soon as possible, particularly to Phase 1, 2, and 1L schools.
LAUSD should also investigate why some communications take months to be
created and published.
III.K. Loss of, or Damage to, Devices
Findings
Information presented to the Committee established that parents will only be liable
for damage to (or loss of) devices due to willful misconduct. Moreover, the situation
may arise where a parent, though liable, is unable to pay LAUSD.
RFP #1118 only required Proposers to assume the risk of loss of, or damage to, the
equipment provided, except for replacement or repair costs due to the negligent or
intentional act of an employee or student. The extended warranty included in
LAUSDs actual contract with Apple65 provides LAUSD with a warranty against
defects in materials and workmanship when used normally in accordance with
[Apples] published guidelines. This is, at best, the assumption of risk required by
RFP #1118 and, arguably, a whole lot less as there may be some distance between
Apples idea of normal use and a users negligence or intentional act.
Recommendations
Whether or not LAUSD contracted for the warranty it had sought, LAUSD needs
some established policies for allocating loss of, or damage to, devices from negligent
or intentional acts (or from abnormal uses) that do not rise to the standard of willful
misconduct. In this regard, some relevant questions include:

Are a sufficient number of devices included in the spare pool for this
contingency?

If not, will school-site or central LAUSD funds be used to repair and replace
devices?

65 See Section 2 of Exhibit D to the Agreement between Apple Inc. and LAUSD, dated as of July 16,

2013, included as Appendix A16 hereto.

96

What disciplinary measures will be employed to correct the behaviors that


tend to result in loss or damage?

How will LAUSD ensure that an equitable and consistent approach is taken
with respect to parents who are legally liable but for whom the expense may
be unduly burdensome?
III.L. Software and Accessories

Findings
There are good reasons for LAUSD to impose some limits on what software and
accessories can be used with devices. Among other things, some products may be
inappropriate, distracting, harmful to LAUSD security features, prone to abuse or
merely incompatible with LAUSD-mandated technology. However, one side-effect of
centrally imposed LAUSD security features is that they take some flexibility away
from schools and individual classrooms.
Recommendations
LAUSD ought to seek a balance between prescriptive mandates and freedom of
choice. Policy should be set regarding the use of social media, including but not
limited to Facebook, and YouTube. In order to facilitate positive innovation, LAUSD
should formulate a streamlined procedure for the approval of technology
enhancements, and a consistent, principled, set of criteria by which to accept or
reject proposals. LAUSD should also regularly publish changes to the approved list,
so that administrators, instructors, staff, parents, and students can keep abreast of
available technology enhancements. The Committee recognizes that, while end-user
choice is a form of competition, LAUSD must consider if and when it would be
necessary or appropriate to undertake a formal procurement for optional
technology enhancements so chosen.
III.M. Engaging Parents in Monitoring Student Device Use
Findings
The Committee commends LAUSD for moving to an opt-in system that requires
parents to opt-in prior to devices going home. An opt-in system ensures that
parents are aware that their child will be receiving a device, using the device, and
taking the device home.
It was asked whether a parent could download an app that tracks the devices usage.
Mr. Chandler committed to do some research and get back to the Committee on that.
The Committee also asked if parents could be sent an email notification if their
students device appears to leave the security monitoring system. The Committee
was told that it was technically possible.

97

Recommendation
Empowering parents to monitor their students digital activities would have some
clear advantages. First, it would provide the parents with peace of mind (or at least
accurate data) regarding their students on-line activities. Second, closely
monitoring the digital activities of over 600,000 students would be an enormous
challenge for LAUSD. A good monitoring app could empower parents who have
the greatest interest in their respective students to do the bulk of this monitoring
for LAUSD. LAUSD would be well served to provide such an app on devices for
parents. In addition, LAUSD should investigate the feasibility and benefits of
sending email or text alerts to any parent who desires, if their students device
appears to leave the security monitoring system.
III.N. Evaluation
Findings
At its inaugural meeting, Mr. Chandler was asked to come back to the Committee
with the set of metrics that LAUSD would use to gauge whether Phase 1 was a
success.66 In order to promote a coherent vision of LAUSDs goals, it is important to
define success in advance. Otherwise, it is very difficult to evaluate performance
and determine opportunities for improvement.
While the Committee had seen various slides describing ongoing evaluation results,
the Committee had not seen any LAUSD master plan for evaluating the CCTP or been
provided with detailed and specific metrics for gauging success. That is not to say
that evaluations have not been conducted, rather that it would be helpful for LAUSD
to frame specific expectations around the extent, timing and purposes of its planned
evaluation activities. In addition, it is not clear how LAUSD intends to measure any
increase in academic achievement. This measurement is extremely important to
show if and how the Apple-Pearson and Phase 1L device-curriculum bundles may
improve learning.
The main LAUSD-directed evaluation that concluded in the 2013-14 school year was
the Interim Evaluation Report of the Common Core Technology Project, dated May
20, 2014, which related to the CCTP rollout of Phase 1 devices to 44 schools in a 10-
week period.67
The Committee was told that LAUSD had also retained an independent third party
research organization, AIR, to conduct additional and longer-term evaluations
related to CCTP. However it was uncertain when any results would be available.

66See Dr. Lims slides presented at the September 25, 2013 Committee meeting, included in Appendix

A17 hereto.

67 The complete Interim Evaluation Report of the Common Core Technology Project, dated May 20,

2014, is included as Appendix A32 hereto.

98

Separate from LAUSDs evaluation efforts, some stakeholder organizations, such as


UTLA and AALA conducted their own surveys, which were reported to the
Committee. One of the first surveys to publish results was conducted by UTLA with
respect to the 47 schools participating in Phase 1 of the CCTP68. Unfortunately, only
265 teachers responded to UTLAs survey out of the 750 teachers who were invited
to take it. While the response rate was suboptimal, there was some agreement
among those who did respond relating to a need for more and better PD.
Another survey to yield some early feedback was conducted by AALA from October
21-25, 2013. AALA sent surveys to 38 Phase 1 Principals and Assistant Principals, of
whom 24 responded. The AALA survey highlights69 included:

90% of AALAs survey respondents said LAUSD should continue the


program;

However, they were fairly divided on whether students should take the
devices home (55% yes, 30% no, and 15% not sure).

The Chairs office sent a survey (the Graduate Device Survey) to alumni of College
Match, a non-profit college preparatory program for low-income high school
students that operates on 10 LAUSD campuses and two campuses in neighboring
school districts, who were attending colleges and universities across the country.
The 45 respondents represented 24 colleges and universities in 11 States. Most
respondents (32 out of 45) were undergraduates at the time of the survey, and the
rest had graduated within the past three years. Among other things, the Graduate
Device Survey sought to determine what devices LAUSDs alumni were actually
using for college work. The overwhelming majority (44 out of 45) of respondents
reported that they owned laptops, while four of those 44 also owned a tablet.70
LAUSDs Procurement division sought one-to-one program market information from
other school districts through a LAUSD Device Procurement Survey.
Unfortunately, there was a very low response rate to this survey. However, LAUSD
did gain some information regarding the technology purchases of several other
districts, but found it difficult to make a direct comparison to LAUSDs program.71
LAUSDs Student Testing and Assessment Branch of the Office of Data and
Accountability conducted a School Technology Readiness Survey, the results of

68 For additional results from the UTLA survey, see the materials from the Committees November 19,

2013 meeting included in Appendix A17 hereto.


69 For additional results from the AALA survey, see the survey results presented to the November 19,

2013 Committee meeting, included in Appendix A17 hereto.


70 For additional results from the Graduate Device Survey, see the materials from the Committees

November 19, 2013 meeting included in Appendix A17 hereto.

71 The results of the Procurement divisions survey can be found in the February 6, 2014 Committee

meeting materials included as Appendix A17 hereto.

99

which it reported at the Committees February 6, 2014 meeting. The survey was
intended to evaluate schools technological readiness for the SBAC assessments.
Although the School Technology Readiness Survey found that only 38% of the
responding schools were deemed ready to use the computer labs for testing as of
the time surveyed, LAUSD staff would later report to the Committee that, in the
actual SBAC Field Test, 91% (or 812,557) of 888,740 test sessions were successfully
started district-wide, of which 95% (or 772,369) were completed. While not
perfect, 91% was a dramatic improvement from the 38% that were deemed ready at
the time of the School Technology Readiness Survey conducted just a few months
prior to the SBAC Field Test. It is unclear what portions of that improvement may
have been due to amelioration of technology weaknesses at LAUSD, on the one hand,
or at SBAC, on the other, or whether the School Technology Readiness Survey was
actually probative of LAUSDs real readiness at the time it was conducted. In any
event, LAUSD should be commended for its role in the rapid improvement ahead of
the Field Test.
Some additional feedback reported to the Committee from the SBAC Field Test
suggested that, due largely to screen size, desktops worked better for testing,
however mobile devices may be more useful in the classroom. Principals and
Testing Coordinators asserted that it would be helpful to receive the devices earlier
in the year, so students and teachers could have more time to familiarize themselves
with the equipment before the testing window, and advised that more devices
would be helpful in order to timely move students through the assessments. They
also indicated a desire for additional face-to-face training, rather than relying so
heavily on videos.
At the May 28, 2014 Committee meeting, Mr. Loera reported to the Committee on a
Take Home Test Pilot for which two schools were to select approximately 30
students each to bring their devices home between May 19, and June 2, 2014.
Depending how the schools chose the participating students, and given the
additional precautions which may not all be scalable district-wide, the pilot might
only provide a sense of the best-case scenario. That said, there are probably lessons
to be learned even from a pilot with a bias towards hand-picked students operating
in a more protected environment.72
One mandate of the Student Success Through an Evaluation-Based Common Core
Technology Project resolution was the requirement that an evaluation be conducted
across Phases 1, 2 and 1L to determine what device or devices and curriculum or
curricula should be used in any future Phases. LAUSD has, only recently, completed
its preliminary evaluation of the Phase 1 CCTP roll-out, and Phases 2 and 1L are
scheduled to commence in Fall 2014. It is unclear how soon LAUSD will be able to

72 An External Representative suggested that LAUSD would be well served to keep track of the

different ways schools either do or do not permit devices to go home, to evaluate any effect this has
on student engagement and achievement, and to consider whether there are any demographic
disparities in these policies.

100

prepare a meaningful evaluation across these Phases.


Recommendations
LAUSD should have and share with the public a master plan for evaluating the CCTP
that addresses:

What surveys, focus groups, and other evaluations does LAUSD plan to have
performed?

When are they scheduled to be conducted?

When will results be available?; and

What actionable intelligence does LAUSD expect to gain from them?

In light of the recent one-to-one pilot conducted in May 2014 and the plan to embed
relevant questions in the Student Experience Survey, which was completed at the
end of the 2013-2014 year, LAUSD should gather, digest and publish the available
data soon in order to inform future decisions.
Outside evaluators hired by LAUSD should be carefully vetted to ensure their
impartiality and that there is no appearance that they may be subject to any
conflicts of interest.
In advance of Phases 2 and 1L, LAUSD ought to determine and make public:

The questions LAUSD will seek to answer through its cross-Phase evaluation;

The methods LAUSD will use to seek such answers; and

The timeframe in which such evaluation will be completed.

In addition, schools throughout LAUSD and school districts across the state and
country are purchasing technology for student use. Recognizing that technology
changes rapidly, LAUSD should gather as much information as possible from its
schools and other districts regarding which equipment best meets the needs of
students and why prior to future purchases.
III.O. SBAC Common Core Assessments
Findings
While not the sole reason behind LAUSDs CCTP, one reason why LAUSD sought to
implement the project as quickly as possible was to allow students to prepare for
the SBAC assessment. In light of that, one would question how the SBAC
assessments are superior to traditional assessments and why it is essential that
students take the SBAC assessments on a computer platform. The Committee heard

101

that the SBAC assessments will be superior to traditional assessments in the future
as they will be computer adaptive which will allow for more pointed assessments
and results. In addition, the Committee learned that technology skills are embedded
in the CCSS and therefore, more appropriately tested on a computer platform.
At its September 25, 2013 meeting, Mr. Loera was asked to bring to the next meeting
some examples of non-multiple choice questions from various grade levels of Math
and ELA. Dr. Rabinowitz of SBAC clarified that the concept of grade-level does not
strictly apply to test questions, but that the Committee could see examples of
elementary, middle and high school questions. The examples provided,73 while not
multiple choice, were not transformed by technology in any perceptible way. The
sample problems could have been delivered equally effectively in traditional paper
and pencil version. The promise of free-response questions, as compared to
multiple choice, is that they theoretically enable the assessor to analyze the test-
takers reasoning. The risk of free-response questions is that scoring can often
depend on the particular assessor and his or her interpretation of the scoring rubric,
or on the fidelity of the rubric, itself74.
During a Committee meeting, the question arose regarding how SBAC assessment
results will be used in future teacher evaluations.
Anecdotal evidence was presented that desktop computers and/or devices with
larger screens were the preferred device for test taking. More information is
needed as to what devices make the ideal testing device and how LAUSD can make
use of that information.
Recommendations
In light of LAUSDs significant interest in the creation of assessments that accurately

73 See Instruction slides included in Appendix A17 hereto.
74 For example, a sample problem on SBACs website (see

http://sampleitems.smarterbalanced.org/itempreview/sbac/index.htm) that was linked to from


Instructions slides presented to the October 22, 2013 Committee meeting (Problem #43025) is
supposed to measure understanding of rounding. The problem shows an animated swimming race
and presents each swimmers time rounded to the hundredth of a second. The question posed is
Explain how the results of the race would change if the race used a clock that rounded to the nearest
tenth. However, the question does not provide the critical background information that Rule SW 11
promulgated by the Federation Internationale de Natation (FINA) provides that all swimmers who
have recorded the same time shall be accorded the same placing. This stands in contrast to sports
like cycling and athletics competition, where a judges observation (aided by a series of photographs)
is used to determine the winner,and race results are not affected by the clock used or how many
decimal places it displays. Paragraph 21 of Rule 165 of the International Association of Athletic
Federations (IAAF) provides, in part, that The Chief Photo Finish Judge shall determine the
placing of the athletes and, as a consequence, their official times. According to SBACs scoring rubric
for Problem #43025, the sample top-score response includes Instead of having one clear winner,
there would be a tie for first place. However, this conclusion requires as much understanding of the
particular rules governing swimming competition as it does the effects of rounding.

102

and fairly assess its students, LAUSD should keep a close eye on the creation of SBAC
questions and lobby as necessary for appropriate and fair questions.
As teachers strive to do well on evaluations and Mr. Loera mentioned that there
would most likely be a dip in scores upon implementation of the new testing system,
LAUSD should clearly determine and communicate if, how, and when SBAC scores
will be integrated into the teacher evaluation system. While the question did not
arise regarding the evaluation of principals, in as much as it also applies, LAUSD
should communicate expectations of SBAC result usage in principal evaluations as
well.
LAUSD should gather information regarding what devices and other practices best
serve its students during testing. In light of the diverse resources available across
the district, LAUSD should run a limited number of testes to compare different
devices and achievement on practice tests. LAUSD should also consider how the
testings interference with instruction can be minimized. This information should
inform future CCTP decisions.
III.P. e-Books and e-Textbooks
Findings
It was disappointing to learn that Instruction chose not to actively pursue e-
Textbooks, because it preferred digital curricula constructed with the CCSS
explicitly in mind. It will likely take years before CCSS-aligned digital curricula are
available for many of LAUSDs course offerings. The Committee had repeatedly
asked Instruction what would be involved in putting existing textbooks into an
electronic format, including any issues of formatting and license fees.
Finally, at the Committees last meeting, Mr. Loera told the Committee that
substitution was not Instructions goal, rather it wanted higher level technological
integration consisting of augmentation, modification, and ultimately redefinition.
More importantly, Mr. Loera reported that LAUSD does not own the digital licenses
to its existing textbooks, and that LAUSD would have to essentially re-purchase
those if it wanted to digitize them. The Committee contends that not everything
needs to be built from the ground up substitution is certainly no worse than what
LAUSD has now.
One of the great promises (and selling points) of the one-to-one initiative was that
devices could function as e-readers and eliminate the need for bulky textbooks. This
remains a compelling objective. In the short-term, the iPads will be adding
approximately three pounds to each students backpack. Students should not have
to carry backpacks that weigh almost as much as they do while they wait for LAUSD
to redefine their textbooks with to-be-developed dynamic digital learning
materials.

103

Recommendations
LAUSD should strive to have as many of its textbooks digitized as reasonably
possible by the time Phase 3 begins.
III.Q. LAUSD Communications Surrounding the CCTP
Findings
LAUSD strives to issue communications regarding the CCTP. LAUSD has created a
CCTP website full of information and hard copy information is distributed as well.
The Committee commends LAUSD for its efforts.
The Committee found that some communications between LAUSD and parents could
be improved. For example, a document in Spanish had not been appropriately
translated into Spanish and was difficult to understand, Parent Liabilty forms were
inconsistent and modified slowly, and initial communications regarding CCTP
focused less on how parents could use the technology to help their students and
more on the general purpose of CCTP.
In addition, the Committee found that internal LAUSD communications regarding
CCTP could also be improved. The Committee learned that schools would often be
in the dark regarding such matters as upcoming device delivery dates, testing dates,
testing procedures. While some of this information was slow to get to LAUSDs
central office, it appears that getting information from the central office to school
sites could also be quite slow. The creation of the CCTP intervention matrix and
school memo is an example of communication development and distribution taking
months: development began in January 2014 and was still not available for
distribution as of early this August 2014.
Recommendations
LAUSD should investigate why some communications take months to craft and
distribute and seek to make the process more efficient, as the length of time for
communications seems to have a negative impact on communications between
LAUSDs central office, school sites, employees, and parents.
LAUSD should use internal LAUSD translators to translate parent communications
and not rely on translation software. LAUSD should seek to ensure that forms are
consistent throughout the district. LAUSD should consider having small groups of
parents and students review important communications targeting them to ensure
that the communications are easy for them to comprehend.
LAUSD could leverage one-to-one devices in communications to students and their
families, through e-flyering. It would not be appropriate for all communications,
because of the student as intermediary, but LAUSD already relies on students to
bring home physical flyers. LAUSD could save paper and printing time by instantly

104

sending electronic flyers to students devices and asking them to show to their
parents at home.
III.R. Committee Access to Information
Pearson Content

Findings
The Committee first asked to review the Pearson curriculum in September 2013,
and had asked if it could be loaded onto the iPads that were going to be issued to
Committee Members and External Representatives. The Committee repeated its
request to see the Pearson curriculum in both its existing form and in the form
reviewed in the procurement process at subsequent meetings. By November 2013,
a Pearson representative had told the Chairs office that they would need Apples
permission in order to allow anyone on the Committee to see the curriculum
product. Once Apple gave that permission, it was disappointing to learn that the
cone of silence around a new RFP was being invoked to deny the Committee access
to the Pearson curriculum that LAUSD had already purchased. Finally, the Chair and
others were invited by LAUSD to attend a review of the Pearson curriculum on
March 19, 2014, but such review was moderated, ostensibly in order to avoid cone
of silence infractions, and it was not part of the Committees official business and
not open to the public or press.75
The Committees inability to review the Pearson curriculum was particularly
troublesome, because a L.A. Weekly article had come out in December 2013
claiming that the paper had reviewed a more extensive demonstration of Pearsons
content than even LAUSD Boardmembers had seen. Whether or not that claim was
true, despite numerous requests, the Chairs office had not received access to the
Pearson curriculum whatsoever beyond the initial demonstration lessons until the
March 19, 2014, presentation (and was only afforded a 90 minute window of access
then).
Neither the Committee, nor the Chair in her capacity as a Boardmember, were ever
able to study what the review panel looked at in scoring the Pearson content during
the procurement process, as the initial devices used for scoring were returned to the
vendors.
Recommendations
While the Committee and Chair were offered many explanations for why Pearson
content was unavailable for their review, the Committee suggests that LAUSD try to
avoid a similar situation in the future. LAUSD should attempt to retain evidence of
curriculum that is scored particularly the top contenders and make that
information publicly accessible.

75 See Process Pearson Curriculum Demonstration, supra.

105

LAUSD should seek to make presentations that are attended by Committee Members
and External Representatives for a Committee-related purpose open to the press to
foster transparency.
LAUSD should encourage the flow of information to Committees to increase their
effectiveness and allow for public discussion and review of the information.
Information Available to the Committee

Findings
Information provided to BOE committees should be accurate or introduced with a
caveat. No one expects those addressing a committee to have the answers to every
question. Many who came before the Committee were willing to say when they did
not know an answer or would need time to get the answer and return the
information to the Committee. Throughout its term, the Committee sought
information regarding LAUSDs plans regarding CCTP-related discipline. The
Committee was told at first that such plans were already developed, then were
not necessary and, finally that they were not ready to be publicly released yet.
Most recently, the Committee was told that an intervention matrix and school memo
would be available by the beginning of the 2014-15 school year.
The Committee was quite clear that it wanted to see these plans, whether or not in
final form and whether or not revisions were being drafted that might
fundamentally alter proposed policy. It is highly problematic that 1) non-sensitive
documents would not be produced to a Committee of the Board promptly upon its
request and 2) extremely different reasons for the information not being provided
would be offered.

Recommendations
Non-sensitive documents should be produced for BOE committees promptly upon
request. If documents are going to take a significant length of time to produce, the
relevant committee should be given an estimated time of delivery and some
information as to what is the cause of the delay.
LAUSD Personnel Participation in Committee Meetings

Findings
LAUSD staff participation in the Committee was essential. LAUSD staff devoted
countless hours to answering questions and providing information to the
Committee and deserve commendation. Part of the Committees effectiveness
stemmed from being able to ask questions and raise concerns at one meeting and
have those questions answered and those concerns addressed by staff then or at a
subsequent meeting. In addition, the Committees ability to ask clarifying questions

106

and delve deeper into topics was dependent upon staff being present at meetings.
Unfortunately, Mr. Tucker was unavailable for the Committees final initially-
scheduled meeting (i.e. the April 24, 2014, meeting) though he had confirmed his
availability for the meeting earlier. The Chair scheduled an additional meeting for
May 28, 2014, at which the Committee could cover the substantial remaining
questions related to procurement, among other things. Procurement provided the
Committee with responses to certain written questions but nobody from
Procurement attended the May meeting. While written responses to questions were
provided, it was obvious during the meeting that having LAUSD Procurement staff
available to clarify answers and respond to follow up questions would have been
better. The Committee appreciates the time and effort expended by Mr. Tucker and
Procurement staff at the Committees request. However, the presence of staff
members present at meetings is invaluable in facilitating information gathering,
even where written answers have been provided.
Occasionally, LAUSD personnel were on the agenda to present, showed up for
meetings, and their agenda item was pushed to a subsequent meeting. This
happened more frequently as the Committee was winding down and trying to cover
large swaths of topics and questions. While the Chair always asked the staff
members permission to move their agenda item to a later meeting, she
acknowledges the significant inconvenience that this must have been for the staff in
question.
Recommendations
LAUSD should dedicate appropriate LAUSD staff to attendance at BOE Committees
recognizing that it will be a significant time commitment - particularly when the
topic is a high interest topic and involves the work of numerous divisions. The BOE
Committee Chairs should plan agendas in a manner that provides time for follow up
information and answers to questions asked at prior meetings, covers new topics as
appropriate, and does not lead to the pushing off of agenda items to subsequent
dates barring an emergency.
III.S. Termination of the Committee
Findings
At the March 5, 2014, Committee meeting, the Chair announced that the Committee
was being wound down and would be preparing a Committee report following the
final meeting, which was then expected in April.
It was concerning that the Committee was being terminated at such an early stage in
the project, as there was still much work to be done and many questions remained
unanswered. The Committee served as a vital avenue for information to flow to and
from the public, whose dollars and youth were ultimately at stake. The Chair her
disappointment, but pointed out that the Committee may be at the point that it

107

could meet every other month instead of monthly. At the July 2014 Board meeting,
Board President Richard Vladovic said that the Technology Committee could
continue as a subcommittee of the Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Committee chaired by Boardmember Ratliff. In light of the ongoing significance and
cost of the CCTP, the Committee commends Dr. Vladovics decision.
Recommendations
As the Committee is now a Technology subcommittee of the Curriculum, Instruction,
and Assessment Committee, the Chair must determine how that will work
operationally, recruit subcommittee members and external representatives, and
publish meeting dates.
It is crucial that LAUSD have a body that can thoroughly examine the results of
external evaluations before LAUSD proceeds with any district-wide rollout of the
CCTP.

108