CREW: Department of Education: Ignite!: Austin Independent School District Response

AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Office ofthe Superintendent

Public Information Coordinator
July 31, 2007
Mr. Daniel C. Roth

Counsel
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
1400 "Eye" Street, NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20005
RE: Information Request Received on July 18, 2007
Dear Mr. Roth:
AISD, by way of this letter, is responding to your request for information received on July 18, 2007 for
the following information,
Please note that Austin ISD has not made any districtwide purchases of any Ignite! Learning product.
1. Any and all communication between any AISD employee or Board Trustee and any officer or
employee of Ignite! Learning, including, but not limited to Ken Leonard and Neil Bush.
The documents responsive to this request are attached.
2. Any and all communications between AISD employees or Board of Trustees and any office of
employee of the Harris County Education Foundation that refers to Ignite! Learning, the
Curriculum or Wheels, or COWs.
AISD does not maintain any documents responsive to this request.
3. Any and all communications between AISD employees or Board of Trustees and any office of
employee ofthe Houston ISD Foundation that refers to Ignite! Learning, the Curriculum or
Wheels, or COWs.
AISD does not maintain any documents responsive to this request. .
4. Any document relating to a donation by Barbara Bush and/or George HW Bush associated with
Hurricane Katrina relief and Ignite! Learning, the Curriculum on Wheels, or COWs.
AISD does not maintain any documents responsive to this request.
5. Any document indicating funding sources and budget expenditures for all Ignite! Learning
products purchased by or donated to AISD.
The Finance Department is still searchingfor records and we will provide any documents they
are able to locate by August 20, 2007. Finance documents are located in an off-site storage
facility and additional retrieval time is required.
1111 W. 6th Street 512-414-2412

Austin, TX 78703 512-414-1486 (fax)
6. Any and all research or other documentation evaluating the instructional effectiveness of any
Ignite! Learning produce.
See an AlSD program evaluation ofthe Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board Grant
which contains some information regarding COWs, at the link below.
http://yvyvyv.austinisd.org/inside/docs/ope_tif-psJOJinaLreporc2002_2003.pdf
7. All draft contracts or agreements with Ignite! Learning

The documents responsive to this request are attached. The Finance Department is still
searching/or records and we will provide any documents they are able to locate by August 20,
2007. Finance documents are located in an off-site storage facility and additional retrieval time
is required.
8. All final contracts or agreements with Ignite! Learning with signature approval.
searchingfor records and we will provide any documents they are able to locate by August 20,
2007. Finance documents are located in an off-site storage facility and additional retrieval time
is required.
9. All sole source documentation for purchase or Ignite! Learning products (e.g., Curriculum on
Wheels, or COWs) or services.
10. All teacher surveys or evaluations relating to any Ignite! Learning product or service
See an AISD program evaluation ofthe Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board Grant
which contains some information regarding COWs, at the link below.
http://www.austinisd.org/inside/docs/ope_ttf-psJOJinaLreporC2002_2003.pdf
11. All vendor purchase orders with Ignite! Learning.

searchingfor records and we will provide any documents they are able to locate by August 20,
2007. Finance documents are located in an ojfsite storage facility and additional retrieval time
is required.
12. All maintenance agreements with Ignite! Learning.

searching/or records and we will provide any documents they are able to locate by August 20,
2007. Finance documents are located in an off-site storagefacility and additional retrieval time
is required.
13. Any listing of campuses that utilize or utilized any Ignite! Learning product (e.g. Curriculum on
Wheels, or COWs).
14. Any inventory ofIgnite! Learning products (e.g., Curriculum on Wheels, or COWs)
1111 W. 6th Street 512-414-2412

Austin, TX 78703 512-414-1486 (fax)
Please contact my office at 512-414-2412 if you have any questions concerning this request.
S:~~;~~~lY.f·f fl
~{JJk
;. I
/i j
l v
Melissa Sabatino
Public Information Coordinator
Office of the Superintendent
1111 W. 6th Street 512-414-2412

Austin,TX 78703 512-414-1486 (fax)
Information from Jose Ramirez, Interim AISD Social Studies Supervisor
July 22, 2004 Former Ignite! Account Manager Patty Morrow and Ignite! Vice President Robin
Green met with Rosemary Morrow and the social studies team in Conference
Room 400 to discuss an overview of the Ignite! program.
February 18, 2005: Ignite! chairman Neil Bush "dropped in" to visit with Rosemary Morrow and the
social studies team to discuss Ignite. He had gone to the Superintendent's office
and was redirected to our department. He also gave an overview of the program
and asked that time be set aside at a middle school department chair meeting for
a presentation on Ignite! We met with him in Conference Room 400 from 12:00
to 1:00 p.m.
March 3, 2005: Former Ignite! Account Manager Patty Morrow spoke to middle school social
studies department chairs about the Ignite! program. If I am not mistaken, I
believe it was after this meeting that O. Henry Middle School decided to
purchase the Ignite! program for social studies.
September 30, 2005: Former Ignite! Account Manager Patty Morrow met with social studies curriculum
specialist Janie Maldonado and science curriculum specialist Helen Johnson to
give an overview of the updated Curriculum on Wheels (COWS).
O. Henry and Mendez Middle Schools currently have the COWs in their social studies departments.
Mendez served as a demonstration site several years ago. The software at Mendez was acquired
through campus adopters. O. Henry acquired their COWs after the department chair meeting in 2005.
PTA funds were used to purchase at least two COWs for the O. Henry campus. Bedichek MS and Lamar
MS received permission to purchase the resource, but they are no longer using the resource.
After the September 30, 2005, meeting, Patty Morrow made available a demonstration COW that was
circulated to several middle school campuses for a week at a time. These campuses included Dobie and
Webb. Neither campus was able to purchase the equipment from Ignite!
1111 W. 6th Street 512-414-2412

Austin, TX 78703 512-414-1486 (fax)
Information from Jose Ramirez, Interim AISD Social Studies Supervisor
July 22, 2004 Former Ignite! Account Manager Patty Morrow and Ignite! Vice President Robin
Green met with Rosemary Morrow and the social studies team in Conference
Room 400 to discuss an overview of the Ignite! program.
February 18, 2005: Ignite! chairman Neil Bush "dropped in" to visit with Rosemary Morrow and the
social studies team to discuss Ignite. He had gone to the Superintendent's office
and was redirected to our department. He also gave an overview of the program
and asked that time be set aside at a middle school department chair meeting for
a presentation on Ignite! We met with him in Conference Room 400 from 12:00
to 1:00 p.m.
March 3, 2005: Former Ignite! Account Manager Patty Morrow spoke to middle school social
studies department chairs about the Ignite! program. If I am not mistaken, I
believe it was after this meeting that O. Henry Middle School decided to
purchase the Ignite! program for social studies.
September 30, 2005: Former Ignite! Account Manager Patty Morrow met with social studies curriculum
specialist Janie Maldonado and science curriculum specialist Helen Johnson to
give an overview of the updated Curriculum on Wheels (COWS).
O. Henry and Mendez Middle Schools currently have the COWs in their social studies departments.
Mendez served as a demonstration site several years ago. The software at Mendez was acquired
through campus adopters. O. Henry acquired their COWs after the department chair meeting in 2005.
PTA funds were used to purchase at least two COWs for the O. Henry campus. Bedichek MS and Lamar
MS received permission to purchase the resource, but they are no longer using the resource.
After the September 30, 2005, meeting, Patty Morrow made available a demonstration COW that was
circulated to several middle school campuses for a week at a time. These campuses included Dobie and
Webb. Neither campus was able to purchase the equipment from Ignite!
1111 W. 6th Street 512-414-2412

Austin, TX 78703 512-414-1486 (fax)
Austin Independent School District
Accountability and Information Systems
i~
\, ~.I:/i \9)'\0'
\\.... U
-~~."'-
DATE: August 8, 2002
TO: Brenda Dalton, Assistant Director of Purchasing
THROUGH: Joy MCL~uty Superintendent

Gray Salada, Chief Infonnation Officer..,y
FROM: Jeff Meyer, Director of Instructional Technology
AISD needs to support the instruction of American History in the 8th grade in order to
better prepare our students on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for that grade
level and to assist them in passing the new TAKS test. Software for this purpose will
need to address the TEKS and should provide students with the ability to access the
relevant materials in a variety of ways (e.g., graphics, text, data and interactive
approaches) consistent with their individual learning styles and academic levels. AISD
specifically requires project-based materials.
Last year, Instructional Technology staff reviewed possible software to meet these needs
and identified the Ignite! software system as the only system that provided this range of
features. Pilot use of Ignite! at Mendez Middle School last year was found satisfactory
and indicated this online approach can be used successfully with AISD American History
students.
Accordingly, we request that the sole source provide status be continued for Ignite! for
2002-2003 so that we can extend the pilot effort to support the 8th grade American
History programs at Lamar and Bedichek middle schools as well. Consistent with our
new practice of ensuring alignment between software purchases and curricular objectives,
we are enclosing a letter of approval from the appropriate Area Superintendent, Mr. Ed
Leo.
Peggy Gordon To: Jeffery Meyer/CAC/AISO@A1SD
cc:
08/06/2002 01:43 PM
Subject: Ignite Software for Social Studies
Please accept this as approval for Sedichek Middle School to use the Ignite social studies software.
Let me know if any additional documentation if required.
----- Forwarded by Peggy Gordon/CAC/AISO on 08/0612002 01 :49 PM -----
Gail Belcher To: Peggy Gordon/CAC/A1SO@AISO

Sent by: Janet Belcher cc:
08/02/200204:22 PM
Dear Dr. Gordon,
As per our conversation on August 1, 2002, I am requesting your approval for use of the Ignite
social studies software with eighth graders of the 2002-2003 school year. Ignite will be used as
an instructional tool to help students meet the challenges of the social studies T AKS. Please
recognize that in no way will this software replace the focus on social studies TEKS or be a
curriculum unto itself. It is simply a creative, student engaging, instructional tool that will be used
to support the social studies curriculum. Its use will be in warm-up activities, classroom support
activities and as a tutorial.
For the last three years Bedichek has targeted literacy-across-the-discipiines, a TEKS focus, and
technology -across-the-disciplines. A strong technology initiative has been developed to support
the core curriculums. Ignite is the best social studies software found to this date, for added
support of the social studies TEKS.
We are looking forward to meeting the challenges of the new state assessment and would
appreciate your support by approving this request. Thank you for your time and attention in this
matter.
Memo to: Jeff Meyer
From: EdLeo ~
Area I Superintendent
Date: August 7, 2002
Re: IGNITE Software
Please accept this memo as approval for Lamar Middle School to use the
Ignite Social Studies Software. Let me know if you need additional
Information from this office.
AUG 0 7 2002
Insc[uC,O(
C"lal
,
Techno/a!?,!
May 30. 2002
Ms. Gail Belcher

Principal
Bedicheck Middle School
6800 Hughes Rd.
Austin. Texas 787.+5
Dear Gail:
Thank you for your interest in the Ignite' Early Adopter Program for the 2002-2003 school year.
Ignite' is built on a passion to improve student learning. Sparked by research-based learning
theories. our new online offering combines an innovative instructional design with the latest
technologies to deli ver a revolutionary new learning experience.
Enclosed is a one year Subscription Agreement. As a participant in the Early Adopter Program
and subscriber to our Earlv Americutl History courseware. Bedicheck Middle School will receive
3 I I individual student subscriptions: use of one Ignite' content server: one full day and two
follow-up sessions of onsite. intensive hands-on professional development for up to 10 education
professionals: one day of on-site software/hardware installation and training for up to 5 members
of your school' s technical staff: and on-going technical support via phone.
Enclosed is a School Minimum Technology Requirements document that outlines the minimum
technology requirements for accessing our Ignite! courseware. Please share these minimum
technology specifications with your senior technology administrator. Justin Kidd. our Sales
Engineer. is available to address any inquiries from your technology staff. Please contact Justin
at 512-633-256.+.
We look forward to establishing a long-lasting relationship with you and Bedicheck 0iliddle
School. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding Ignite' or our Early
Adopter Program.
Best regards.
Michelle Grandinetti
Account Manager
Ignite' Inc.
512-771-1538
Early Adopter Proposal
g~i~~' for
Bedicheck Middle
School
May 15,2002
Number of Individual Courseware Pricing

Student Subscriptions @
$30/Student
Bcdichcck f\1iddlc School- Early American History $9,330.00
311
._. __._---._--------_._-----_._---------
'rotal Project $9,330.00

Subscription Agreement
Products and Services
This Subscription Agreement is entered into as of June 4, 2002 by and between Ignite! Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
"Ignite!") a Delaware corporation with offices located at 11044 Research Blvd., Suite A-230, Austin, Texas 78759
and the Austin Independent School District (hereinafter referred to as "AISD") with offices located at 1111 W. e"
Street, Austin, Texas 78703. In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, Obligations, and conditions set forth
herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
Ignite! and the AISD agree as follows.
I. COURSEWARE SUBSCRIPTIONS:
Ignite! grants use of 311 non-exclusi ve, non-transferable, individual student subscriptions for Ignite!' s Early American
History courseware to AISD for use by students enrolled at Bedicheck Middle School during the 2002 - 2003 school
term. AISD agrees to pay Ignite! 530 per student subscription for total cost of 59,330.00.
2. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Ignite! will provide one full day and two follow-up sessions of on-site, intensive hands-on professional development
for up to 10 education professionals at Bedicheck Middle School.
3. ADDITIONAL HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE:
Ignite! will provide Bedicheck Middle School use of one Ignite! content server for Ignite is courseware. The content
server, which will remain property of Ignite.'. must be used exclusively for the Ignite! courseware and must be
returned to Ignite! by the AISD within 30 days following the termination or revocation of this Subscription
Agreement.
4. INSTALLATION AND TECH.NICAL Sl'PPORT:
Ignite! will provide one day of on-site hardware and software installation and training for up to 5 members of the
Bedicheck Middle School and AISD technical staff. Ongoing technical support via phone or email also will be
provided to Bedicheck Middle School staff.
5. SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER:
Ignite: is the sole source provider for its Early American History courseware.
6. NOTES AND COMME.NTS:
Ignite! will also grant A1SD access for up to 20 individual student ids that can be used for general classroom
instruction at Bcdicheck Middle School.
Signatures below indicate agreement and acceptance of both the Product and Services page and the Terms and
Conditions page of this Subscription Agreement.
For Ignite ':
thorized agent for the AISD Agreed to by authorized agent for Ignite!
S4L.rl- l ') A
Printed Name Printed Name
Terms and Conditions
1. SUbject to the execution of this Subscription Agreement, Ignite! grants use of 311 non-exclusive, non-transferable, individual
student subscriptions for Igniter's Early American History courseware to the AISD for instruction to students enrolled at Bedicheck Middle
School during the 2002 - 2003 school term. Distribution of Ignite! courseware to others who are not enrolled at Bedicheck Middle School
is prohibited. '
2. Access to Ignite!'s courseware and platform is via the Internet. Ignite! shall have no obligation for providing. installing.
supporting, or maintaining Internet connectivity or computer hardware or software for the AISD or Bedicheck Middle School, except as
expressly agreed to in writing through this Subscription Agreement. AlSO acknowledges it has received Ignite!'s School Minimum
Technology Requirements document. Furthermore, AlSO hereby represents to Ignite! and agrees that the AlSO and Bedicheck Middle
School networks and systems infrastructure will meet or exceed the minimum technology requirements referenced in Ignite!'s School
Minimum Technology Requirements document for the duration of this Subscription Agreement.
3. Upon signing this Subscription Agreement, Ignite! will present an invoice for payment. AlSO agrees to pay all fees within 30
days of receipt of invoice. Fees are specifically net of any taxes, duties. or any other governmental levies on any licenses, patents.
copyrights, products, or services provided by Ignite!
4. AlSO acknowledges and agrees that Ignite! is the owner or an authorized licensee of all content, copyrighted material, patentable
designs and processes. and all intellectual property used in the courseware being provided by Ignite.'. AlSO acknowledges and agrees that
Ignite! is not selling software to AISD, and AlSO has no right to receive or examine source code for any Ignite! courseware. Furthermore,
AISD agrees that it will not participate in or permit any activity that infringes. impairs, or harms Ignite!'s ownership and intellectual
property rights in its courseware.
5. IGNITE! DISCLAIMS ALL EXPRESS OR [VIPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO

ITS COURSEWARE OR DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON·
INFRINGEMENT, OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR USE, PURPOSE, OR SUITABLITY. FURTHER:YIORE, IGNITE!
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO THE AISD FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE,
EXEMPLARY, OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, \VHETHER UNDER TORT, CONTRACT, OR ANY OTHER THEORY OF
RECOVERY. AISD AGREES THAT IGNITE!'S TOTAL LIABILITY UNDER THIS SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT WILL
NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF FEES OR OTHER PAYMENTS OF ANY DESCRIPTION PAID BY THE AISD TO
IGNITE!. IN JURISDICTIONS THAT DO NOT ALLOW FOR THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL. INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, OR FOR THE EXCLUSION OR
LIiVIITATION OF EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, THESE EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS WILL NOT APPLY.
(6) This Subscription Agreement, which consists of the Products and Services page. the Terms and Conditions page, and incorporates
by reference the School Minimum Technology Requirements document, contains the entire understanding and agreement between the
Ignite! and the AlSO and supercedes all other prior written or verbal agreements and understandings with respect to its subject matter. This
Subscription Agreement may be amended or modified only through a writing that is signed by an authorized agent or representauve of both
parties and that specifically refers to this Subscription Agreement. Furthermore. no action or inaction by Ignite! shall be deemed a waiver
of any of Ignite!'s respective rights. If any Term or Condition of this Subscription Agreement is held to be unenforceable. such Term or
Condition shall be modified to the extent necessary to make it enforceable. The invalidity or unenforceability of any Term or Condition
shall not affect the remaining Terms and Conditions of this Subscription Agreement, all of which will remain in fuJI force and effect.
(7) Neither Ignite! nor the AlSD will be liable for any failure of performance if such failure is due to any cause beyond either party's
reasonable control, including without limitation. acts of God, fire, explosion. vandalism. cable cut, adverse weather conditions,
governmental action. labor difficulties, and supplier failures. AlSO's invocation of this clause shall not relieve the AlSO of its obligations
(0 pay for any Products or Services received. In the event such failure continues for 60 days, the other party may terminate the affected
portion of the Products of Services agreed to under this Subscription Agreement.
(8) /\ISD represents that it has complied with any and all requirements that the school district requires for the execution of this
Subscription Agreement. AISD and Ignite' agree that respective obligations and rights under Section 3 of the Products and Services page
and Sections 3, 4. 5, 7. 3, and 9 of the Terms arid Conditions page will survive the revocation or termination of this Subscription
Agreement. Ignite! reserves the ri ght to transfer any and :.lII of its rights. obligations, and recei pts of payment under this Subscription
Agreement to a third party without recei ving permission from the AISD,
(9) Igmte ' and the AISD agree that any dispute that arises out of the Subscription Agreement shall be resolved by final and binding
arbitrurion before a Single arbitrator selected by mutual agreement, or failing mutual agreement selected in accordance with the rules of the
American Arbirr.uion Association then In effect. An award under arbitration may include the costs of the arbitration.
!School Minimum Technolo uirements
He uirement Descri tion ,Minimum Re uirement
i Ideal Network Specifications I Allowing for existing school network traffic
I School District to District ISP 45 Mbos (1800 Active Internet Browsers)

I District to School 1.54 Mbps
I School to Classroom / Lab SWitched 100Mb/sec Full Duplex
I
I Bandwidth load per student to Internet 2-7kbos
Local Area Network Bandwidth I 10Mb per 30 students (345k strearmno VI deo x 30 s tuden ts)
s
Classroom / Lab Computer Hardware Rqts
Headphones/Speakers 11 set per user. or tunctroruno speakers

Processor
,
\
PC Pili 450Mhz
Mac 1G3
I
RAM i 64-128MB
Sound Card 1 16-8it
Video Card i 16-Bit
Monitor Colors 1 16-8it
Monitor Resolution i 1024x768
Network Card i 10MB/sec Full Duplex
Classroom / Lab Computer Software Rqts
Operating System
PC IWind95. 98. NT or 2000

I
Mac IMacOS 8.5 and greater

Browser Version
PC orted)
Mac
i
Java Enabled Browser ! Must be enabled
Java Scriot Enabled Browser ! Must be enabled
,
Cookies Enabled 8rowser ! Must be enabled
Flash : Version 5
Real Player \ Version 8
DNS ; 19niteaccess.com zone hosted bv schools DNS server or ours.
Firewall/Proxy Requirements
Ports
RealPlayer : Ignlte l Identified port enabled outbound
Maxtor Administration i Ignlte l Identified oort enabled Inbound
HTIP & HTIPS : Ports Enabled outbound

Content Updates : Ignite l Identified ports outbound
Protocols
TCP/IP : if uSing NAT. port assignments must be available via router hardware
Web Filtering Must allow access to server lPs & lorute Content
Proxv Server ; No Cache of Ignite'. trattic

May 29.2002
Ms. Patti Lyle

Principal
Lamar Middle School
620 I Wynona
Austin. Texas 78757
Dear Patti:
Thank you for your interest in the Ignite! Early Adopter Program for the 2002-2003 school year.
Ignite! is built on a passion to improve student learning. Sparked by research-based learning
theories. our new online offering combines an innovative instructional design with the latest
technologies to deliver a revolutionary new learning experience.
Enclosed is a one year Subscription Agreement. As a participant in the Early Adopter Program
and subscriber to our Early American History courseware. Lamar Middle School will receive 287
indi vidual student subscriptions: use of one Ignite! content server: one full day and two follow-up
sessions of onsite. intensi ve hands-on professional development for up to 10 education
professionals: one day of on-site software/hardware installation and training for up to 5 members
of your school's technical staff: and on-going technical support via phone.
Enclosed is a School Minimum Technology Requirements document that outlines the minimum
technology requirements for accessing our Ignite! courseware. Please share these minimum
technology specifications with your senior technology administrator. Justin Kidd. our Sales
Engineer. is available to address any inquiries from your technology staff. Please contact Justin
at 512-633-256-L
'vVe look forward to establishing a long-lasting relationship with you and Lamar Middle School.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regardi ng Ignite I or au r Early Adopter
Program.
Best regards.
Michelle Grandinetti
Account Manager ~h')'~ ,:Irt, r,ht: \,:I\i)(!.
Ignite! Inc. \(-'.1\' \\ \\'C~ (":.\·,.{-·)r~C~ ,f=,\~('~lY'l
512-771-1538
Early Adopter Proposal
g~~~~' for
lamar Middle School
May 15,2002
Number of Individual Courseware Pricing

Student Subscriptions @
$30/Studcn t
Lamar Middle School-2X7 Early American History $X,610.00
--
Total Project $8,610.00

Peggy Gordon To: Jeffery Meyer/CAC/AISD@AISD
cc:
08/06/200201 :43 PM
Please accept this as approval for Bedichek Middle School to use the Ignite social studies software.
Let me know if any additional documentation if required.
----- Forwarded by Peggy GordoniCAC/AISD on 08/06/2002 01 :49 PM -----
Gail Belcher To: Peggy Gordon/CAC/AISD@AISD

Sent by: Janet Belcher cc:
08/0212002 04:22 PM
Dear Dr. Gordon,
As per our conversation on August 1, 2002, I am requesting your approval for use of the Ignite
social studies software with eighth graders of the 2002-2003 school year. Ignite will be used as
an instructional tool to help students meet the challenges of the social studies TAKS. Please
recognize that in no way will this software replace the focus on social studies TEKS or be a
curriculum unto itself. It is simply a creative, student engaging, instructional tool that will be used
to support the social studies curriculum. Its use will be in warm-up activities, classroom support
activities and as a tutorial.
For the last three years Bedichek has targeted literacy-across-the-disciplines, a TEKS focus, and
technology -across-the-disciplines. A strong technology initiative has been developed to support
the core curriculums. Ignite is the best social studies software found to this date, for added
support of the social studies TEKS.
We are looking forward to meeting the challenges of the new state assessment and would
appreciate your support by approving this request. Thank you for your time and attention in this
matter.
Memo to: Jeff Meyer
From: EdLeo ~
Area I Superintendent
Date: August 7, 2002
Re: IGNITE Software
Please accept this memo as approval for Lamar Middle School to use the
Ignite Social Studies Software. Let me know if you need additional
Information from this office.
i
Recei ved
!
i
/ AUG 0 7 2002
{
Instrucllol'Jal
Technoloe:v
Jun. 16 2001 9:25AM HP LASER..JET 3200 p.1
l044 Research Boulevard Suite A-2~()

Ai.sun, TC.xJ:) :S75 l)
S1:2 .i·..1SS:'S:: ! 5l234."i.9:::5.~ tax
rACSDlILE TRA:--.IS:>IITTAL SHEET
l\ r-
J'
,,,.,, ~""'\ ~ ;~', 'C~
» \ \ i \. -;
c-... \. '-',
('\\1,\1. ~() ~)l, P.$;l~.'\ i:--'( :L"J)JN(; C()Vl:R:
,.--::--,. ",
>.;,1, of.
l'lll"-!- \\>11:':;1.1. ;\1\::-;""; \(:1· \".1) "11 -\l \ \<.:!\II';"I:.. \i,\Y ~.~J:,rr\H,j )llU\'!)Y$l;:;.!) .,,',!; (.{~Ni·IUF~'J'I.\J. :~"';H.jH.i\I:\:·H)I'~
\i,l: \!{l, :~TI'>"l)!'!) {l.'J-Y !o\ ;I{ :"1 11' l{i:.t~:I'~!-::-d(.-;·i ;.I:-:')'F1) .\lll)\'! !l; 'H)(; .\IU·. :.....t:.;·;·!!l-:H uu. !N'n,:~nl-:j)U:C:I)lr~;';S}
.'.;( i i l \ 1'Llt:--.~ ,;-.. 1{!'..' i1l i:"i~! I~J.i H )IZ Ti : i. ~)! .J,;"
j'.)\'~ <. It' '1': ! i -; !.. \{ ;Sl ,\I1;Y xn
::'~~.\l;1 \;'-. D .\ ":-:' .\( :!-ll\:1 :;"JT:' T( ') T: 1;·
';~i".:·."D!:l) iU:::ll'IL>~T(», 'It\l- \jU"'IIF.H.!·I~\· Ni;J'~
:1':::1) ! \'l .~t'-;y ~~J,\L·lill)I{j/.:':) ,;';";TltllH.;T](iN ()!t.~{;P\·::".i(; (:t.
TljlS \(~l\i u; .\;'\il':: \n·\Clj;'.~.\i::'-~ j\.; l ' PR(;IIIB ;) :i' \'t)t. ,\;U.')'liJ: L','iIN11·.;-';~)l'.t) :~hCIPJI.~'r()I·':·]LS
(:I.l\U,;I·\.!I.\~'I('i'.'I! ,\SI \·:·5i:·:... 3-:~..~X2
1;\II\;:~~;:\l'1~,Y(,(~:--":T,\CII:_~i!'-.::1·1:~{j(l"""I·~;:-;C:!Hl':1 ·:IJ.\>.l~':·\.j~...·'
,,
". ..
.... -..... '
'- I I V '- I' ~ '- I ....., ' - u u
Ignite'
School Minimum Technology Requirements
Reouirement ion Minimum Reauirement
Ideal Network Speciftcations Allowing for existingschool network traffic
SChool Clstnet to District ISP 45 ~ (1800 Active Intemet Browsers]

Districtto Scnool 154~~
scnoo: :0 Classroom j Lao Switched 100Mb/secFull Duplex

Ba-Idwidtl1l0ad per studentto :nten:et 2·7><005
Local Area Net\'Jori< Bandw:dth 10 tvl:J oer 30 students(3451< streami"9 VIdeo x 30 students)
Classroom I Lab Computer Hardwar e Rqts
Headobones.Speaxers 1 set per user, or f1.I1ctloning speakers
Processor
rc Pili 450Mhz
Mac G3
RAM 64-128MB
Sound Card 1~it
Video Card 1~it
Moniter Coiors 1tH3il

Monitor Resolution 1024x768
Netwcrl Card 10 MS/sec =tA Duplex
Classroom I Lab Corneuter Software Rats
Operating System
PC 'Nind95, 98, NT or 2000

Mac ~1aCCS 85 and greater
Browser Version
PC IE 5 O+iNetscape 4 76·<1.79 (Netscape 6 is not yet sepported)
Mac Netscape 4 73 (Netscaos 6 is not vet supported)
Java Enabled Browser Must be enabled
Java Script Enabled Browser Must be enabled
Cookies Enabled Browser Must be enabled
riasn version o
Real "'laver Version 8
DNS Ignlteac-...ess.ccrTI lore hosted b'/ SC:lOOS DNS server or OLJ'S
Firewall/Proxv Requirements
Ports
ReaiFiayer I Igr,ile1der.tified port enabled :Jutbour,a
Maxtcr Acrrurustrahon Ignite! .cernliec POI1 enaolec ~xuna
Ii HTTP & Hr-PS

content pdates
Ports ::naoled outbound
I
v
Ignite! Identified ports outbouoc I
Ptotocots I
TC?tlP if usirq NAT. oort ass.qorneots must oe available via router narnware
Web Filtenng lv1u5t allow access 10 server F:s 8, IgM€ Cement
'"(OxyServer No Cache of Ignite!traffic

::. '
-
TECHNICAL LABORAToRY SYSTEMS, INC.
P. O. Box 218609 • Houston, Texas n218
April 29, 2002
Mr. Mike Saenz

Austin lndsoeocent School District
1111 W. 6tti Street
Austin, Texas 78703
FAX: (512)414-1506
Reference: Sole Source Letter
Dear Mr. Saenz:
This letter serves as notice that Technical Laboratory Systems, Inc. is the sole source
distributor for Intelitek in the state of Texas.
LJ..,I~~~RY SYSTEMS, INC.
--
1·800-445·1088 • (FAX) 281-391-1113 • e-mail: tech-labs. com
TECHNICAL LABORATORY SYSTEMS, INC.
P. O. Box 218609 • Houston, Texas 77218
April 29. 2002
Mr. Mike Saenz

1111 W. 6th Street
Austin, Texas 78703
FAX: (512)41~1506
Dear Mr. Saenz:
Thank you for your interest in our products. Technical Laboratory Systems, Inc. is pleased to provide
the following quotation for your consideration.
PCIINTERFACE CARD
ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION
1) 6 PCI Intertace Card 2,000.00 $12.000.00

Part No. 22-8200-0053
TOTAL PCIINTERFACE CARD $12,000.00
SHIPPING CHARGES 95.00
TOTAL PRICE PCIINTERFACE CARD $12,095.00
Thank you for the opportunity to quote on the above equipment. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (800) 445-1088.
Regards,
T~?~,LA8~~INC
~~erts~
Regional Manager
CRlsj
cc: Timothy M. Brown - President
1-800-445-1088 • (FAX) 281-391-1113 • e-mail: tech-Iabs.corn

Fax Transmission
Date: 5/21/2002
To: Brenda Dalton/Purchasing

FAX Number: 480-0924
\,------
From: Gayle Short AUSTIN I.S.D.
1111 W. 6th st. 0-230
Instructional Technology Dept. of Instructional Technology
Phone: (512) 414-9949
Fax: (512) 414-9947 ,/
Number of Pages including cover sheet tt
Quote for PReq 026787-Apple
Sole Source letter fro PReq 027809, Technical

Laboratory System. Also the reqs entered. below
are Board extension 5-02.
PReq 027729 - Burnet

027773 - Covington
027789 - Porter
027800- O.Henry
Please call if you experience any transmission problems.

AUSTIN INDEPENDENT $CHOOLDISTRICT
1111 \nfest 6th 5lw!}l Austin. TX 78701 Phone: (512) 414-1700
Office of Instructional Technology

Jeff Meyer, Director
To: Brenda Dalton
From: Jeff Meyer, Director of Instructional Technology
Through: Gray Salada, Chief Information Officer

Dr. Joy McLarty, Deputy Superintendent for Accountability and
Information Services
Date: 08-08-02
Re: Sole Source Justification, Ignite!
The Ignite Instructional System is a server- and web-based content

delivery product for eighth grade American History courses. It allows
teachers and students to supplement history instruction through a
unique series of multimedia, multi-sensory vignettes and projects. It
has been beta-tested at Mendez Middle School during the 2001-2002
school year and is planned to be piloted at Lamar and Bedichek Middle
Schools during the 2002-2003 school year.
• Ignite! has been determined to be a sole source provider for

eighth-grade American history online content for the following
reasons:
o Ignite! is the only online product which offers an

instructional approach in American history that supports
the multiple ways students learn by using media pieces that
are specifically geared toward multiple intelligences.
o Ignite! specifically combines a learn-by-doing approach
o Ignite! provides standards-based concepts in multiple ways

through the use of a variety of media including: text,
interactive, graphs, songs, photographs, graphics,
photographic video, and animation.
o Ignite! offers both traditional (test preparation) and

authentic assessment.
o This product is designed only for middle school.

o Ignite! is a proprietary multi-media presentation
application.
• No other American History product that the schools have reviewed

is similar in any way to Ignite! because of the reasons above.
AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
1-111Wcst6thSl.n:NJ! AusHn_TX 78701 Phone: (512)414-1700
Office of Instructional Technology
Jeff Meyer, Director
To: Brenda Dalton
From: Jeff Meyer, Director of Instructional Technology
Through: Gray Salada, Chief Information Officer

Dr. Joy McLarty, Deputy Superintendent for Accountability and
Information Services
Date: 06-21-02
Re: Sole Source Justification, Ignite!
The Ignite Instructional System is a server- and web-based content

delivery product for eighth grade American History courses. It allows
teachers and students to supplement history instruction through a
unique series of multimedia, multi-sensory vignettes and projects. It
has been beta-tested at Mendez Middle School during the 2001-2002
school year and is planned to be piloted at Lamar and Bedichek Middle
Schools during the 2002-2003 school year.
• Ignite! has been determined to be a sole source provider for

eighth-grade American history online content for the following
reasons:
• Ignite! is the only online educational publisher to offer an

instructional approach in American history that supports the
multiple ways students learn by using media pieces that are
specifically geared toward multiple intelligences.
• Ignite! specifically combines a learn-by-doing approach, with

media-rich content that allows each student to learn in the ways
they learn best.
• Ignite! provides standards-based concepts in multiple ways

through the use of a variety of media including: text,
interactive, graphs, songs,
• photographs, graphics, photographic video, and animation. By
presenting content in this way, students have the advantage of
learning the material in the learning style that fits them best.
Students also benefit by the repetition of experiencing the
concepts multiple times, in different ways. No other product of
which we are aware does this for American history content and
instruction.
• Ignite! offers both traditional (test preparation) and authentic

assessment.
• This product is designed only for middle school.
• Ignite! is a proprietary multi-media presentation application.
We have employed the following collaborative process in determining

that Ignite!, as a sole-source vendor, is a preferable use of
instructional technology for our teachers and students at Mendez,
Lamar, and Bedichek Middle Schools:
1. School year 2001-2002: Mendez beta-tested course

2. Mendez continues to utilize this tool in summer school, 2002
3. January 7, 2002: Met with Rosemary Morrow, Social Studies Supervisor
and Team Leader, and two of her specialists
4. TCEA, 2002- Met with Gail Belcher,principal, Bedichek MS,
Dr. Yolanda Rocha, Area 3 Superintendent, Bergeron Harris, Principal,
Paredes MS and Connie Barr, Principal, Mendez MS. Also in attendance
was Neil Bush, sales team product manager
5. Feb. 14, 2002- Spent the afternoon with Gail Belcher, Tech
Specialist and Bedichek teachers to review the product and the content
6. Feb. 18, 2002 Met with Jeff Meyer, Director, Instructional
Technology and IT staff
7. Feb 28, 2002- Observation Kathleen Ready's classroom (Mendez MS) by
AISD social studies staff member
8. Feb 27,2002- NY Times review and meeting with Connie Barr, teachers,
and students to discuss course
10. Feb. 28, 2002- Austin Principals Meeting- Ignite! presented to all
principals and Lamar teachers
11. March 6,2002- Social Studies observation at Mendez
12. March 8/12, 2002- Gail Belcher and Ignite! meeting
13. March 20- Rosemary met with Instructional Design Director,
Instructional Specialist, Stephen Ray and Kathleen Ready (Mendez
teachers) and 5 Mendez students for two hours to review course.
14. March 22 / April 28, 2002- Lamar Middle School Meeting
15. March 25, 2002- Small Middle School, teachers and Ignite!
The culmination of these meetings and review process is that Ignite!

is, indeed, a sole-source provider of American history on-line content
to be piloted during the 2002-2003 school year.
Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund
Board Grant,
Evaluation Report 2002-03

Department of Program Evaluation
July 2003
02.04 TIF PSi 0 Final Report 2002-03
Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board Grant

Evaluation Report 2002-03
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board Public School Grants (TIF PSlO) are
funds to assist schools in providing students with advanced technology skills and
equipment to meet the challenges of the 2151 Century. AISD used funds from the TIP PS 10
grant to: 1) improve student access to advanced technology coursework; and, 2) improve
student achievement by providing teachers with the knowledge, skills, and equipment
necessary to teach courses in advanced technology applications and integrate technology
into core content areas. Schools identified to participate were high schools with student
populations that were largely economically disadvantaged and were diverse with respect to
ethnic or racial groups.
To accomplish these goals, program staff provided teachers with three different
kinds of technology professional development, ongoing support for implementation, and
computer equipment and peripherals in a moveable computer cart that could be transported
to classrooms as needed. The teachers called these carts Computers on Wheels or COWS.
Teachers attending professional development agreed (1) to develop a content area unit that
integrated technology with a core subject area (Unit of Practice or UOP), (2) to implement
the UOP in the classroom, (3) to work with campus staffto write a "Cart Plan" that
detailed how the cart would be shared among teachers on the campus, and (4) to teach
advanced technology courses.
Major Findings
The evaluation of the TIF PS 10 program was based upon (1) observations of
professional development sessions, lessons in classrooms where technology was being
integrated, and of ongoing support provided to teachers throughout the course of the grant,
(2) focus groups and interviews with and surveys of teachers, students, and program staff,
and (3) an examination of changes in students' and teachers' technology skills. Evaluation
results indicated the following:
02.04 TIF PSlO Final Report 2002-03
• Teachers agreed that the professional development provided during the summer
months (MAESTRO and advanced technology courses) was useful and of high
quality. All participants agreed that they gained valuable technology skills and
that the facilitators shared important information about classroom
implementation. Some teachers indicated that meeting less often and over the
course of many weeks might be more beneficial for learning and processing
information.
• Students' and teachers' technology skills in the areas of general computing,

using spreadsheet, or presentation software, and Internet skills increased over
the course of the year. By the end of the year, a higher percentage of both
groups reported that they were proficient in each of the skill areas.
Additionally, teachers reported increased proficiency in integrating technology
into their classroom practice. By the end of the grant, teachers indicated that
they and their students were using technology to creatively solve problems
using multiple software packages.
• About one-fourth of the teachers finished and implemented a UOP. UOPs

covered all four of the core content areas (i.e., mathematics, language arts,
science, and social studies) as well as several elective areas. Some teachers
worked in teams to produce a single UOP.
• Teachers trying to implement a UOP felt challenged by: (1) district policies that
indicate the time frame during which certain topics should be covered, (called
the Instructional Planning Guides or IPGs), (2) the availability of the COWS,
and (3) the demands involved in developing the skills necessary to effectively
collaborate to produce group projects.
• All five campuses met the goal of teaching at least four advanced technology
courses. Four ofthe five campuses offered more advanced technology classes
for the 2003-2004 school year than they did the previous year.
Recommendations
1. Maximize the number ofteachers who implement a complete Unit ofPractice
by restructuring professional development so that teachers leave with a viable
UOP. A clear challenge to the TIF PS 10 and other technology integration
programs (Samii-Shore, 2002) is that teachers do not have a finished product
11
02.04 TlF PSI 0 Final Report 2002-03
when they leave the MAESTRO training. To create an aligned, uniform
curriculum district leaders have created Instructional Planning Guides (IPGs)
that designate a Scope and Sequence for each core content area. Because
teachers need to implement their UOP during the 9-week time period set out by
the IPGs and because they must share the carts, teachers' ability to implement
would be greatly improved by restructuring MAESTRO training so that
teachers have a viable UOP when they finish, and also by examining the timing
of UOPs at each campus so that teachers can have access to computers when
they need them.
2. Create and nurture multiple sources ofsupport for teachers who are
implementing UOPs and advanced technology coursework. Ongoing support
for the implementation of UOPs is critical. Past programs have used technology
support staff as a source of support and information to teachers with notable
success (Samii-Shore, 2002). In the TlF PS 10 grant however, teachers
appeared to prefer on-campus support provided by either campus technology
personnel or colleagues over support from district staff. Support of colleagues
who work in close proximity (Batchelder & Christian, 1999) and campus
technology support are important elements in implementing new ideas. Thus,
promoting multiple conduits for support may be a profitable way to reach and
support more teachers.
3. Provide ongoing professional development that addresses challenges to
successful implementation. A major hurdle for teachers who implemented a
UOP was helping students to work effectively in groups. Teachers' and
students' existing frameworks for group learning, coupled with the integration
of technology, were inadequate. Ongoing support and follow-up sessions that
address group learning will strengthen teachers' abilities to provide high
quality, challenging material and help students be more prepared for the
demands of project-based, collaborative work.
4. Publicize advanced technology course offerings to ensure that students take
advantage ofthese opportunities to fulfill graduation plan requirements.
Teachers reported that once students were educated about the coursework
available to them, they were excited to take advanced technology courses.
111
02.04 TIF PSIO Final Report 2002-03
Make this information more widely available to make it easier for students to
complete their recommended high school plans.
IV
02.04 TIF PSI 0 Final Report 2002-03
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF FIGURES VI
LIST OF TABLES VI
PREFACE VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VII
OVERVIEW 1
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 2
Program Participants 3
RESULTS 4
Professional Development and Changes in Teacher Learning .4
MAESTRO Summer Institute 4
Advanced Technology Training 6
Ongoing Support for Implementation 8
Program Implementation and Changes in Student Learning 8
UOPs and Technology in the Classroom 8
Implementation of UOPs 9
Group Process and Technology Integration 10
Changes in Students' Knowledge and Skills 11
Student Achievement 12
Technology Course Offerings 14
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15
ApPENDICES 17
ApPENDIX A: TEACHER SURVEY OF TECHNOLOGY SKILLS 18
ApPENDIX B: CHANGES IN TEACHERS' SELF-REPORTED PROFICIENCY ON A TECHNOLOGY
SKILLS SURVEy 20
ApPENDIX C: DEFINITIONS FOR THE LEVELS OF USE SCALE 21
ApPENDIX D: RUBRIC FOR ASSESSING CLASSROOM IMPLEMENTATION OF UOPS 22
ApPENDIX E: CHANGES IN STUDENTS' SELF-REPORTED PROFICIENCY ON A TECHNOLOGY
SKILLS SURVEy 23
ApPENDIX F: TECHNOLOGY COURSE OFFERINGS AT TIF PS10 SCHOOLS 2002-03 AND 2003-
04 24
REFERENCE LIST 25
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. TIF PS 10 Expenditures, 2002-03 1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Teachers' Reported Phase of Technology Integration 5

Table 2. Participants' Reported Level of Proficiency in Digital Graphics and Animation:
Before and After Training, and Post-program 7
Table 3. Participants' Reported Level of Proficiency in Digital Video: Before and After
Training, and Post-Program 7
Table 4. Percentage of Students Reporting Proficiency on a Technology Skills Survey:
Spreadsheet Skills 12
Presentation Software Skills 12
Table 6. Total Number of Courses Offered and Taught at TIF PS 10 Schools: 2002-2003
and 2003-2004 14
VI
02.04 TlF PSJO Final Report 2002-03
PREFACE
The purpose of this report is to provide information to program staff, the

Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board, and other stakeholders about the
Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board Public School grant (TIF PS 10). This
information will help decision makers to improve existing and future technology
integration programs in the Austin Independent School District.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The evaluation team owe thanks to several key people for contributions to this
report. First, we wish to thank the TIF PS 10 program staff. Input and insights from
program staff were invaluable at all stages, including: planning the evaluation; developing
measures; introducing key informants; providing feedback on the report; and, keeping
evaluators informed at every stage of implementation. Staff from the Division of
Accountability and Information Systems provided programming assistance and helpful
feedback. Finally, we wish to thank the teachers and students who participated in the TIF
PS 10 program and taught us about their experiences with the program.
Vll
OVERVIEW
The Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board Public School Grants (TIF PS 10)
are funds to assist schools in providing students with advanced technology skills and
equipment to meet the challenges of the 21 st Century. AISD used funds from the TIF PS 10
grant to improve (1) student access to advanced technology coursework and (2) student
achievement by providing teachers with the knowledge, skills, and equipment necessary to
teach courses in advanced technology applications and integrate technology into core
content areas. Schools identified to participate were high schools with student populations
that were largely economically disadvantaged and were inclusive of ethnic or racial
minorities.
AISD received $499, 405 to implement the program. AISD used the TIF PS10 grant
funds for the purchase of mobile wireless carts, computers, video equipment, and software
($391,030), extra pay for teachers to attend sessions ($13,500), and professional services
in the form of professional development and support to teachers ($94,875).
Figure 1. TIF PS 10 Expenditures, 2002-03
Professional Services
19%
Computer Equipment and Supplies

78%
Source: Finance Record of the TIF PSI 0 Grant, July, 2003
1
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
AISD partnered with Apple Computers, Region Xlll Education Service Center, and
Austin Community College (ACC) to provide equipment and services. High school
teachers from five campuses participated in three different kinds of professional
development: a four-day session in technology integration (MAESTRO); several three-day
sessions in different types of advanced teclmology coursework (Web Mastering, Digital
Video Production, and Digital Animation); and, courses in Technology Applications
Certification led by ACC faculty. Teachers who complete the Technology Applications
Certification courses in July of 2003 will be certified to teach Technology Applications
through Region XIII. Each school sent up to six participants to the four-day sessions, up
to three participants to each three-day session, and up to three participants to the
certification training. Attendance records indicate that all campuses sent the maximum
number allowed to the MAESTRO and Teclmology Applications Certifications sessions,
and most sent the maximum number to each of the advanced technology sessions.
Each campus received a mobile wireless cart (called computers on wheels or COWS)
containing laptop and desktop computers, video equipment, mathematics tools (e.g.,
graphing calculators), and software. COWS were to be shared on campuses by the TIF
PS 10 teachers. Upon completing MAESTRO, participants were expected to work with
campus staff to develop a "Campus Cart Plan" that detailed how the COWS would be
made available to teachers.
Teachers who attended MAESTRO were expected to work either alone or in groups to
create a Unit of Practice (UOP) that they would implement in their classrooms. UOPs are
content area units that incorporate the use of technology in the lessons. The class time to
implement a UOP varies between one or two days and up to six weeks. AISD staff created
a repository for the UOPs designed by participating teachers. To view the UOPs that TIF
PS 10 and other AISD teachers have created, go to: http://uop.austin.isd.teneLedu/
A staff person from the Department oflnstructional Technology was assigned to each
school to provide technical support and implementation assistance to teachers. Four
additional professional development follow-up days were planned: (a) to help support
teachers in refining their UOPs; (b) to provide further training in equipment use; and, (c) to
discuss successes and challenges related to integrating technology in the classroom.
2
PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
A total of 72 participants attended the professional development sessions provided

by TIF PS 1O. Most participants were teachers (n=64); however, schools also were allowed
to send other staff (e.g., librarians, technology support staff, and instructional coaches)
who might benefit from the training and provide support to teachers using the technology.
Participants were allowed to attend more than one session. Thirty-four teachers and staff
attended MAESTRO technology integration training, 28 completed one or more of the
advanced level courses, and 13 teachers currently are attending the Technology
Applications Certification training.
Staff were encouraged to choose teachers who were comfortable using technology,
especially those participants who attended the advanced technology sessions. Campus
staff successfully recruited teachers who already were familiar with technology.
Compared to a sample of sixth grade teachers who participated in a similar program
(Samii-Shore, 2002), a higher percentage of teachers in the TIF PS 10 program reported
that they were proficient in almost all areas on a technology skills survey given at the
beginning of the MAESTRO training (see Appendix A for a copy of the survey).
3
RESULTS
The goals of this program were to increase student core content achievement and
technology skills by integrating technology into regular classroom activities and by
creating increased access to advanced technology courses. This section first examines the
impact of the professional development provided to TlF PSIO teachers because teachers'
knowledge and ability to implement are critical components of student success. Finally,
changes in students' knowledge, skills, and access to advanced courses are explored.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGES IN TEACHER LEARNING
The TIF PS 10 grant provided funds for three different types of professional
development: the MAESTRO summer technology integration institute, three different
advanced technology skills sessions, and a technology certification training. This section
examines the quality and impact of the first two types of professional development because
the Technology Certification training is not yet complete.
MAESTRO Summer Institute
Data from technology skills surveys completed by teachers before the MAESTRO
summer institute began, and again at the end of the program, confirm that teachers
acquired new technology skills. More teachers reported that they were proficient in all
skill areas (General, Word Processing, Spreadsheet, Presentation Software, and Internet) at
the end of the program. Depending upon the skill, anywhere from 3% to 38% more
teachers reported that they felt they could either do the skill themselves or do it and show
other how to do it as well (see Appendix B for comparisons of technology skills and
increases).
Teachers also were asked to rate on 5-point scale, before and after the program how
they used technology in the classroom (see Appendix C for the scale and its associated
definitions). Higher levels on the scale indicate that teachers are becoming more skilled in
integrating technology because they are using technology as a tool to deliver content and
using more collaborative approaches to learning. At the most basic stage of integration,
Familiarity, teachers rarely use technology in class and have only basic skills themselves.
The Foundation stage indicates that teachers know basic software packages and sometimes
require students to use those packages to complete assignments. Teachers in the Fusion
stage indicate that they and their students regularly use more than one software package to
4
02.04 TIF PSJO Final Report 2002-03
produce content related products. At the Facilitation stage teachers report that they and
their students use software in unique ways to solve problems and create new knowledge.
As compared to answers on the pre survey, teachers reported on the post-survey
that they were using technology in a more integrated and rigorous fashion than they were
before the program began. As Table 1 indicates, more teachers reported that they were in
Fusion and Facilitation and less in Familiarity and Foundation.
Table 1. Teachers' Reported Phase of Technology Integration
50%
45%
co
c: 40%
'-2
g,
<,;)
35%
0:::
C/)
..... 30%
<,;)
...c
u 25%
C<:l
<,;)
f-< 20% .
4-<
0
15 15%
<,;)
~
<,;) 10%
0...
5%
0%
Familiarity Foundation Fusion Transformation Facilitation
Technology Integration Phase
Source: Teachers pre and post-surveys oftechnology integration, 2002-03.
Teachers' impressions of the summer institute collected during focus groups and
from surveys generally were positive. Many cited the facilitators' knowledge of
technology and classroom practice as the best elements of the professional development.
They also stated that they learned many new technology skills, such as how to create
digital movies and how to use presentation software. The most frequent feedback for
improvement had to do with time: Teachers thought that the training should be spread out
over the course of several weeks rather than all day long on consecutive days. National
Staff Development Council standards for teachers' professional development indicate that
adequate time to practice and integrate new skills is an integral component of professional
development that has a lasting positive effect on teachers practice (NSDC, 1999).
Teachers also attended a two-day follow-up session in late fall and an evening
showcase of the work produced by all of the teachers who had attended MAESTRO
5
sessions the previous summer. The fall follow-up was initially designed as a day to
brainstorm successes and challenges to implementation and to learn more about the
equipment. Facilitators changed the format, however, when they realized that most
teachers had not finished writing their UOPs. The follow-up session instead became a
workday for teachers to complete their UOP, a discussion of how to write a cart use policy,
and information about using the equipment that was included in the cart. These changes,
although necessary, meant that teachers did not have time to reflect on the challenges and
successes involved in technology integration and were not able to access the facilitators'
experience in this area.
The Winter Showcase was developed as a way for teachers involved in several
different grants to share their work and experiences with each other, and to help create a
vision of what was possible to do with technology in the classroom. Because the Winter
Showcase included work from anyone who attended a MAESTRO summer institute in
2002 and implemented a UOP, much of the work that was presented was produced by
elementary and middle school teachers. The TIF PS 10 grant was for high school teachers
only. Technology support staff reported that they had a difficult time finding TlF PS 10
teachers who were willing to present their materials. In the end, only one teacher from the
TIF PS 10 grant was willing and able to present the work done with grant support.
TlF PS 10 teachers who attended the showcase reported that they enjoyed seeing the
UOPs that were produced, although they learned little that would help them to implement
in their own classrooms. Informal observations of the evening and standards for effective
professional development add credence to teachers' comments; for professional
development to be effective, teachers must have opportunities to critically analyze work,
reflect on their own and others' work, and apply it in their own classrooms (NSDC, 1999).
The showcase created an opportunity to celebrate work, motivate participants, and create
vision, but it was too large and unstructured to create lasting, meaningful learning for most
teachers and was less relevant for high school teachers.
Advanced Technology Training
Teachers' self reports of proficiency with the content area collected after the
training and after the program show similar patterns for both the Digital Video and Digital
Animation trainings. As Tables 2 and 3 indicate, participants reported that they were not
very proficient before the training, that the training had increased their proficiency
6
considerably by the end of the program (late May). However, post-program follow-up
assessments revealed that with time, the teachers' sense of proficiency diminished
somewhat.
Table 2. Participants' Reported Level of Proficiency in Digital Graphics and Animation:

Before and After Training, and Post-program
Proficiency i
Before training I After training 'I Post program
Level : (11=8) (11=8) I (/1=4)
n % n n %
Low 2 25 1 12 1 25
4 50 1 12 2 50
Medium 1 12 3 38 0 0
1 12 2 25 1 25
High 0 : 0 1 12 0 0
Source: Fall and Spring Teacher Technology Surveys
Table 3. Participants' Reported Level of Proficiency in Digital Video: Before and After
Training, and Post-Program
Proficiency i Before training I After training I Post program
Level i (11=7) I (11=7) ! (/1=6)
n % n % n
,
Low 2 29 1 11 0 0
3 43 1 0 2 33
Medium 1 14 5 11 3 50
1 14 0 56 1 17
Hie:h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Fall and Spring Teacher Technology Surveys
Because class sizes for the advanced trainings were small (15 maximum per class),
the number of surveys collected for each course was limited (n=4 to 9 per class). Thus, the
survey results and any reasons for the reported changes in proficiency should be
interpreted with caution. Interviews with teachers who attended suggested that decreases
in teachers' proficiency levels may be due to the lack offollow-up trainings. Many
teachers did not teach these classes during the 2002-03 school year and thus had fewer
opportunities to improve their skills.
Technology integration professionals, who participated in these workshops and met
with the evaluator to describe the quality of the sessions, and teachers who reported their
perceptions during focus groups, agreed that the workshops were engaging, and were
presented in a way that allowed them to collaborate and to learn by doing. It was
suggested by teachers that there should be prerequisites in order to be sure the class was at
the right level and that follow-up sessions would be necessary for them to implement these
skills in the classroom.
7
Ongoing Support for Implementation
To provide ongoing support to teachers integrating technology in the classroom,
each campus was assigned a technology support staff person from the Office of
Instructional Technology. Support staff contacted teachers on each campus, provided
ongoing professional development in the form of classroom observations, mentoring, and
small group professional development on a variety of topics. Technology support staff
reported that teachers seemed reluctant to ask for help, and reluctant to allow staff to
observe in classrooms and offer suggestions. Staff provided help when teachers asked, yet
the teachers who were implementing were the most likely to ask. Support staff reported
that teachers at the elementary campuses, where IT staff provided assistance, were more
willing to ask them for help and support.
Although many teachers did not access the support provided by technology support
staff, they did find support for implementation in other ways. On some campuses, several
teachers worked together in teams to develop one UOP that one or more of them were able
to implement. Teachers who worked this way generally taught in the same content area
and sometimes worked in close proximity to one another. One campus had an additional
technology support person, located on the campus, whom teachers relied on for support
and assistance. Teachers at this campus reported that they felt more comfortable accessing
the campus support person because the individual was located on the campus and was able
to respond more quickly. The campus support person attributed teachers' willingness to
rely on the on him/her to the ongoing relationships they were able to build as colleagues
rather than being viewed as an expert by teachers.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND CHANGES IN STUDENT LEARNING
Student learning depends upon quality implementation. This section explores

classroom implementation, student learning, and student access to advanced technology
courses.
UOPs and Technology in the Classroom
Nineteen teachers submitted 12 UOPs to the UOP web page. There were more
teachers than UOPs because some teachers worked in groups to write a single unit. These
UOPs covered the four core content areas (i.e., mathematics, science, language arts, and
social studies) as well as photography, French, and journalism. UOPs that teachers
8
02.04 TIF PSlO Final Report 2002-03
developed exposed students to a variety of software packages, made use of the Internet as a
research tool, and introduced students to movie making and digital image manipulation.
Of the 34 teachers trained in technology integration, about one-fourth of teachers
n=9) reported implementing a UOP. Some teachers reported that they increased their use
of technology in the classroom instead of implementing a UOP. Focus group data
collected from teachers and technology staff at the end of the year indicated that many
teachers had wanted to implement a UOP but felt they were not able to because of the
District's Instructional Planning Guides (IPGs) that designate a 9-week period of time
(sometimes more than one 9-week period) when teachers may teach certain topics and
problems that they encountered scheduling use of the COWS. District leaders confirm that
all teachers can substitute a UOP for the suggested lesson plans that are included in the
IPGs, but that all teachers need to follow the IPGs and teach the specific topics within the
designated 9-week period.
Coordinating classroom implementation of the UOPs was particularly challenging
to teachers this year because it was the first time teachers had tried to implement a UOP,
the first year for teachers to work with the IPGs, and the first year for teachers to have
access to the COWS. Because the COWS must be shared among teachers on the campus,
and UOPs have a specific 9-week period in which they need to be implemented,
scheduling issues must be worked out well in advance of implementation.
Despite these challenges, several teachers found ways to incorporate technology in
the classroom. Some teachers implemented an abbreviated UOP or another teacher's UOP
that fit better within the parameters of the District's IPGs. When COWS were
inaccessible, teachers used campus computer labs or had student teams rotate to use
computers in their own classrooms.
Implementation of UOPs
Evaluators and support staff informally observed several teachers implementing
UOPs during the course of the year. Evaluators used a rubric to focus field notes on
critical areas of technology integration. Evaluators looked for evidence of: (a) relevant
content area and technology TEKS, (b) skilled presentation of the content area, (c)
technology that enhanced student learning and supported higher level thinking skills, and
(d) relevant assessment materials (see Appendix D for the rubric).
9
Teachers and students reported that they were excited to have technology in the
classroom. One of the staff said, "I love to see the kids getting so into it. They come right
in and get right down to work." Classroom observations indicated that students were
involved and on task when the technology was engaging and when content related problem
solving was at the forefront. In one classroom, the teacher had students explore a
diagramming software package by working in groups to create a diagram about each group
member. Students were unfamiliar with the software and had to work together to figure
out how it worked as well as decide how to work together to make a single presentation.
Challenges arose when teachers created UOPs that demanded lower level
processing, such as filling in blanks with bookmarked materials, or when group work was
structured in ways that allowed students to work individually. When this happened
students who finished early played games on the computer or checked email instead of
working with the group to complete the task. Observations indicate that some teachers
wrote UOPs that demanded high-level, project-based learning, but in practice teachers
seemed to struggle with the dynamics of keeping all students on task and sufficiently
challenged while allowing for enough time for students to struggle and experiment with
the material. In a study of standards-based mathematics implementation, researchers found
similar challenges. Teachers were able to provide and maintain sufficiently challenging
tasks when they provided adequate time for students to work through difficult content and
when they scaffolded students to a higher understanding, rather than reducing the
complexity of the problem (Stein, et al., 2000).
Group Process and Technology Integration
When students were asked what they thought were the benefits of using
technology, they stated that it made projects easier to complete, fun, and interesting. Most
thought they had learned more about the content because they were able to use the
technology to learn content in new ways. Many were discouraged by the limited access
they had to computers and by the need to share computers. Although both students and
teachers indicated that they would like to have more computers available, collaboration
and constructivist practices are enhanced when the ratio of students to computers is 4: 1
(Boethel & Dimmock, 2001).
Group dynamics in general were difficult to manage, although some reported
effectively functioning teams of students. Many student teams reported that one or two
10
students did most of the work and that they didn't know how to influence their peers to
work together. Teams that reported that they enjoyed working together tended to use an
"Expertise Model" for getting work done: They assigned parts of the task according to
what students already knew how to do. This model was efficient for getting an entire
project done and led to less conflict, but did not create opportunities for students to
become competent with unfamiliar facets of the technology.
Students stated they were uncomfortable with their teachers' lack of expertise in
technology and with the long process of fixing problems. One student described the
process of accessing technology support this way: "We would have a problem, the teacher
would tell us to look in the manual. She didn't seem to know what to do. Then she would
call for help [from tech support], but by the time they got here we had fixed it ourselves."
This finding suggests that students are ill at ease when teachers are not the experts.
Because implementing UOPs means that teachers will be restructuring their classroom
practice in ways that call upon students to work together and share expertise, making
information about the process of technology integration and constructivist practice
available may be beneficial to both students and teachers.
Changes in Students' Knowledge and Skills
Despite challenges, students' technology skills improved over the course of the
year. Students of teachers who participated in TIF PS IO were asked to report how
proficient they thought they were on 25 technology tasks (e.g., cutting and pasting text,
using the Internet for research, entering data into a spreadsheet) at the beginning of the
school year (n=125) and again in May (n=200). As compared to the pre-test, more
students reported on the post-test that they were proficient in all tasks but one; increases in
proficiency ranged from 4% to 32% more students depending upon the task (see Appendix
E for skills and percentages). Not surprisingly, more students reported proficiency in skills
in which few students had initially been proficient, that is, spreadsheet and presentation
software skills.
11
02.04 TlF PSIO Final Report 2002-03
Spreadsheet Skills
Enter data into a

spreadsheet
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii•••i·-·-···---l
:.::2
if) .
>-.. Use sort and find functions
g> p:;::;.;== :_ post (n=200)
g Create a graph from i
~
Clpre (n=125) .
_ ..
,,-.------ ---_. -----
"8
<l)
spreadsheet data
f-< Use spreadsheet formulas

or functions
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of Students Reporting
Source: Fall and Spring Student Technology Surveys

Presentation Software Skills
Create a presentation using presentation software
-
:.;;;
C/)
Use draw tools to create charts and templates
>-..
gf Integrate graphics, video, and sounds into a slide .post (n=200)
'0 presentation i Clpre (n=125)
::: --_.- ----------'--'-'- '
..=:
u
~ Transfer images from CD-ROM
Scan a document
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of Students Reporting
Student Achievement
The impact of teachers' implementing a UOP on student achievement was
examined by comparing implementation to student passing rates on the Texas Assessment
of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) subject areas including English Language Arts,
Mathematics, and Science. Teachers who participated in TIF professional development
were surveyed to determine who implemented UOPs in which classes. Information about
implementation was received from 22 teachers. The TAKS passing rates of students in
classes of five teachers who implemented UOPs in a subject area and grade level tested on
12
the TAKS were compared to the TAKS passing rates of students in the same teachers'
classes in which UOPs were not implemented. Some students were eliminated because
th
they were taking a class but were not tested due to their grade levels (e.g., 12 graders are
not tested in any subjects on TAKS and 9 th graders who take biology are not tested in
science until loth and 11th grade TAKS). Statistical tests revealed no differences on
English and Language Arts TAKS passing rates for 46 students who took the test and
either participated in a UOP or did not, Although differences on Mathematics and
Science TAKS passing rates occurred with more students who participated in UOPs
passing than did students who did not participate in UOPs, the results were confounded by
other variables. For example, UOPs were implemented only in AP and Honors
mathematics classes and UOPs were implemented in primarily magnet classes.' Thus, the
impact of implementing UOPs on student content knowledge in core subject areas is
uncertain on the basis of this analysis.
To improve the examination of the impact of technology integration on student
achievement, future data collection and analysis should include two key elements. First,
the quality of implementation of the UOP, including the depth of content covered, needs to
be rated to determine the possible impact of technology integration on student learning.
Second, for a fine grain analysis of the content area addressed in UOPs and expected
student learning, research needs to link the specific content area taught with the
correspondent TAKS objective. These improvements in analysis would make conclusions
about the impact of UOPs on student learning appropriately drawn.
Furthermore, research suggests that student achievement, as measured by state-
level student testing data, is most likely to be affected by technology when the technology
is used as a tutor for students to practice basic content area skills. When technology is
integrated as one tool of many in the classroom to create project-based, student-centered
classroom practice, students show improved critical thinking skills, ability to work and
negotiate with peers, and increased job skills in the form of being able to locate and
synthesize data (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002) and perform comparably to students in
traditional classrooms on tests of student achievement (Penuel, Golan, Means, & Korbak,
2000).
1 Chi-square = .28, p < .05.

2 For students taking mathematics courses, n = 52; for students taking science courses, n = 32.
13
Technology Course Offerings
Another goal of the TlF PS 10 grant was to increase the number and type of advanced
technology courses offered at each of the five participating schools. As Table 6 indicates,
four of the five schools increased the number of advanced technology courses they offered
from 2002-2003 and three were able to schedule and teach more classes in 2003-04 than
they did in 2002-03. All five of the schools offered more than the required four courses,
which was the original goal of the TIF PS 10 grant (see Appendix F for exact course
offerings by year).
Table 6. Total Number of Courses Offered and Taught at TIF PS 10 Schools: 2002-2003
and 2003-2004
School Year Akins Crockett I Johnston I LBJ Travis
0* I M* 0* M* 0* M* I 0* I M* 0* M*
4 4 4 7
6 6 6 12
*0= course offered, M= course made, S=course stacked into another course so students can receive credit
*Data source: Class Schedule Managers at each campus.
Teachers suggested that campuses needed to be more organized and make a greater
effort to inform students that these classes existed and of the benefits of taking advanced
technology course work. One teacher commented, "My kids love this class and now that
they have taken it, they want more." Teachers believed that if campus faculty and staff
would make a commitment to inform students they would see an even greater increase in
the number of classes that had enough students registered to be taught.
14
02.04 TIF PS10 Final Report 2002-03
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Research indicates that when technology is used as a tool to help students learn
core content areas, students gain valuable knowledge and skills. Additionally, when
technology is one of many tools for students to use in the classroom, and when that tool is
used regularly, the structure of teachers' classroom practice becomes project-based and
student-centered (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002). Although students and teachers in the TIF
PS 10 program reported frustration with the group processes integral to implementing
UOPs, working through these challenges provides students with the skills necessary in the
job market: the ability to work collaboratively, to share and find information, and to make
use of data to understand complex systems (Secretary's Commission on Achieving
Necessary Skills [SCANS], 1991).
Teachers' self reports of the quality of the summer professional development
sessions and increases in both teachers' and students' technological proficiency are
encouraging and serve as indirect evidence of the quality of the professional development
provided. However, for all teachers to be able to implement skillfully so that students will
be able to learn to use technology as a tool to learn content in more interesting and
challenging ways, we recommend the following:
1. Maximize the number ofteachers who implement a complete Unit ofPractice
by restructuring professional development so that teachers leave with a viable
VOP. A clear challenge to the TIF PS 10 and other technology integration
programs (Samii-Shore, 2002) is that teachers do not have a finished product
when they leave the MAESTRO training. Because teachers need to implement
their UOP during one or more particular 9-week time frames set out by the
IPGs and because they must share the carts, teachers' ability to implement
would be greatly improved by (1) restructuring MAESTRO training so that
teachers have a viable UOP when they finish, and also by (2) examining the
timing of UOPs at each campus so that teachers can have access to computers
when they need them.
2. Create and nurture multiple sources ofsupport for teachers who are
implementing UOPs and advanced technology coursework. Ongoing support
for the implementation of UOPs is critical. Past programs have used technology
support staff as a source of support and information to teachers with notable
15
success (Samii-Shore, 2002). In the TIF PS10 grant however, teachers
appeared to prefer on campus support provided by either campus technology
personnel or colleagues over support from district staff. Support of colleagues
who work in close proximity (Batchelder & Christian, 1999) and campus
teclmology support are important elements in implementing new ideas. Thus,
promoting multiple conduits for support may be a profitable way to reach and
support more teachers.
3. Provide ongoing professional development that addresses challenges to
successful implementation. A major hurdle for teachers who implemented a
UOP was helping students to work effectively in groups. Teachers' and
students' existing frameworks for group learning, coupled with the integration
of technology, were inadequate. Ongoing support and follow-up sessions that
address group learning will strengthen teachers' abilities to provide high
quality, challenging material and help students be more prepared for the
demands of project-based, collaborative work.
4. Publicize advanced technology course offerings to ensure that students take
advantage ofthese opportunities to fulfill graduation plan requirements.
Teachers reported that once students were educated about the coursework
available to them, they were excited to take advanced technology courses.
Make this information more widely available to make it easier for students to
complete their recommended high school plans.
16
APPENDICES
17
ApPENDIX A: TEACHER SURVEY OF TECHNOLOGY SKILLS
a • I don't know how to do it. c - I can do it by myself.

b • I can do it with a little help. d • I can show others how to do it.
1. Save, copy and delete files in/from the hard drive a b c d
2. Save files to a floppy disk a b c d
3. Copy, cut, and paste text a b c d
4. Size and move graphics a b c d
5. Use drawing tools (e.g. paint, pencil, select tool) a b c d
6. Create simple documents (e.g., letters, reports) a b c d
7. Edit, modify. and spell check documents a b c d
8. Create a document with text and graphics a b c d
9. Merge documents a b c d
10. Use advanced features (tables, headers or footers. macros, etc.) a b c d
11. Enter data into a spreadsheet a b c d
12. Use sort and find functions in a spreadsheet a b c d
13. Create a graph from spreadsheet data a b c d
14. Use formulas or functions in a spreadsheet a b c d
11. Create a presentation using a presentation software program a b c d
12. Use drawing tools(e.g. pencil, select tool) to create charts and templates a b c d
13. Integrate graphics, video clips and sound into a slide presentation a b c d
14. Transfer images from CD-ROMs a b c d
15. Scan a document a b c d
16. Log on to the Internet a b c d
17. Receive/send e-mail and attach documents a b c d
18. Create and use bookmarks/favorites a b c d
19. Conduct research on the Internet using search engines a b c d
20. Download and store documents and files from the Internet a b c d
21. Create a web site a b c d
18
02.04 TIF PS10 Final Report 2002-03
22. Please classify yourself into one of the following categories by filling in the
appropriate letter on the scantron provided 3.
a. I know the importance of computers and related technologies. I have some basic
skills but do not think I have sufficient expertise to use technology without
assistance. I rarely require the use of technology to complete assignments.
b. I know the basics of many software packages and can select the appropriate one
for a specific task. My students use a word processor or other basic software
packages occasionally to complete assignments.
c. I can use more than one software package in the creation of a single product. I use
technology in preparation, instruction and evaluation. My students use a variety of
software programs regularly in the construction of curriculum-based products.
d. I often use software to solve specific problems in ways I have not seen others try.
My students use not only computers but other related technology equipment in
curriculum based projects by analyzing resources and creating new knowledge.
e. I share my knowledge of computers and related technologies through modeling,

peer coaching and mentoring. I encourage students and co-workers to experiment
with different software and technologies.
23. How many hours of training have you received in implementing the Technology
Applications TEKS?
a. no training d. 7-10 hours

b. 1-3 hours e. 11-15 hours
c. 4-6 hours f. more than 15 hours
24. How confident are you that you can implement the Technology Applications TEKS without
further training?
a b c d e
Not confident Very confident
25. Do you currently integrate technology into the curriculum?
a b c d e
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Very Often
26. Currently, how many hours per week do you use technology with your students?
a. Less than 1 hour d. 3 hours

b. 1 hour e. 4 hours
c. 2 hours f. 5 or more hours
3
Adapted from a measure developed by Kathrine Box. Based loosely on the "TAKE a STEP"
Model and on a measure developed by Kathrine Box and Gerald Knezek at TCET.
19
ApPENDIX B: CHANGES IN TEACHERS' SELF-REPORTED PROFICIENCY ON A
TECHNOLOGY SKILLS SURVEY
56% 84%
33% 68% 35%
64% 35%
100% 6%
88% 9%
20
ApPENDIX C: DEFINITIONS FOR THE LEVELS OF USE SCALE
Phases of Technology Integration 4.
Familiarity
I know the importance of computers and related technologies. I have some basic
skills but do not think I have sufficient expertise to use technology without
assistance. I rarely require the use of technology to complete assignments.
Foundation
I know the basics of many software packages and can select the appropriate one
for a specific task. My students use a word processor or other basic software
packages occasionally to complete assignments.
Fusion
I can use more than one software package in the creation of a single product. I
use technology in preparation, instruction and evaluation. My students use a
variety of software programs regularly in the construction of curriculum based
products.
Transformation
I often use software to solve specific problems in ways I have not seen others try.
My students use not only computers but other related technology equipment in
curriculum based projects by analyzing resources and creating new knowledge.
Facilitation
I share my knowledge of computers and related technologies through modeling,
peer coaching and mentoring. I encourage students and co-workers to
experiment with different software and technologies.
4
Adapted from a measure developed by Kathrine Box. Based loosely on the "TAKE a STEP"
Model and on a measure developed by Kathrine Box and Gerald Knezek at TeET
21
ApPENDIX D: RUBRIC FOR ASSESSING CLASSROOM IMPLEMENTATION OF

UOPS
Excellent Good Revisit

0 Technology use is 0 Technology use is engaging 0 Technology is not age
engaging, age appropriate, and age appropriate, but it is appropriate, nor engaging,
beneficial to student unclear as to how it and does not enhance
>- learning, and supportive of enhances student learning. student learning.
Cl
0 higher-level thinking skills.
'0 0 Technology is important, but 0 Importance of technology
I: 0 Technology is integral to the not integral, to the lesson . to the lesson is unclear.
s:
u success of the lesson.
III 0 A limited relationship between 0 No relationship between the
I-
....0 0 A clear relationship between the use of technology and use of technology and
I:
the use of technology and student learning is exhibited in student learning is exhibited
0 student learning is exhibited the lesson. in the lesson.
~ by the lesson.
C, 0 Use of technology is limited to 0 Lesson does not take
.$ 0 Use of technology enhances using the computer as a advantage of research,
£: the lesson by using the research tool, a publishing tool, publishing, and
computer as a research tool, or a communication device. communication capabilities.
a publishing tool, and a
communication device.
0 Lesson requires students to 0 Lesson requires students to 0 Lesson requires students to

interpret, evaluate, theorize analyze and apply information, define, identify, describe,
and/or synthesize solve problems, and/or make and/or summarize. Very
information. conclusions. little, if any, higher-level
0 Targeted learning objectives 0 Targeted learning objectives thinking required.
are clearly defined, well are defined and moderately 0 Targeted learning
articulated, and supported by supported by the Essential and objectives are vague and
Cl
I:
the Essential and Unit Unit Questions. not cleariy supported by
'c"- Questions. 0 Lesson moderately addresses the Essential and Unit
Questions.
'"
III
...J
0 Lesson addresses the Unit
Questions in a meaningful
the Unit Questions in a
meaningful way. 0 Lesson does not address
1: way. the Unit Questions in a
III
-0
0 Some learning objectives align
::l 0 All learning objectives clearly with state frameworks, content meaningful way.
ti5 align with state frameworks, standards, and benchmarks of 0 Relationship between
content standards, and the subject area(s). learning objectives and
benchmarks of the subject 0 Lesson offers minimal state frameworks, content
area(s). accommodations to support a standards, and
0 Lesson has well-defined diversity of learners. benchmarks is unclear.
accommodations to support a 0 Lesson does not
diversity of learners. accommodate a diversity
of learners.
I: 0 Lesson provides a well- 0 Lesson provides a model for 0 Lesson model and
~ developed model and project replication, but the guidelines for replication
oS guideline for model needs more complete lack clarity.
I:
III implementation. guidelines.
E 0 Lesson is limited to the
III 0 teacher's own classroom.
Lesson can be easily 0 Lesson might be applicable
Q.
modified and implemented to other classrooms .
.5 in a variety of classrooms.
0 Instrument(s) for authentic 0 Instrument(s) for assessment 0 Instruments for

assessment and evaluation of most targeted objectives assessment of targeted
1:
III I: are included. are included. objectives are not included
'E" .-
",-
0
0 A clear relationship is evident 0 Some relationship is evident or the assessment does
not match the targeted
III '" between learning objectives between learning objectives
"'..= and assessment of student objectives.
'" '"
<>
_w learning. 0
and assessment.
Assessment tools contain 0 Relationship between
1:-0
IIII: 0 objectives and assessment
-g", Assessment tools contain some topic-specific criteria, but
tool is unclear.
topic-specific criteria in order may be unclear to students.
ti5 to serve as a helpful scaffold 0 Assessment tools contain
for students. only general criteria.
22
ApPENDIX E: CHANGES IN STUDENTS' SELF-REPORTED PROFICIENCY ON A

TECHNOLOGY SKILLS SURVEY
24%
27%
76% 87% 11%
73% 87% 14%

34% 52% 18%
23
ApPENDIX F: TECHNOLOGY COURSE OFFERINGS AT TIF PSIO SCHOOLS

2002-03 AND 2003-04
*0= course offered, M= course made, S=course stacked into another course so students can receive credit
*Dara source: Class Schedule Managers at each campu
24
02.04 TIF PSi 0 Final Report 2002-03
REFERENCE LIST
Batchelder, M. & Christian, C. (1999). Austin Collaborative for Mathematics
Education, Case Study, 1998-1999 (OPE Publication 98.08). Austin, TX: Austin
Independent School District.
Boethel, M. & Dimock, K.V. (2001). Constructing knowledge with technology.
Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Box, K. & Gnezek, G. (2002). "TAKE a STEP". Retrieved May 1,2003,
from http://wwyv.sedl.org/work/historical/tap.html
Penuel, W., Golan, S., Means, B., & Korbak, C. (2000). Silicaon Valley
Challenge 2000: Year 4 Report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI Intemational.
Ringstaff, C. & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational
technology investment: A review offindings from research. San Francisco: WestEd.
Samii-Shore, K. (2002). Technology integration in Education, 200i -2002
Report (OPE Publication 01.A). Austin, TX: Austin Independent School District.
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work
requires ofschools: A SCANS reportfor America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Website (2002). Applying
technology to restructuring and learning. http://\vww.sedl.org/worklhistoricalltap.html
Stein, M.K., Scwann Smith, M., Henningsen, M.A., & Silver, E.A. (2000).
Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebookfor professional
development. New York: Teachers College Press.
25
Division of Accountability
Maria Whitsett, Ph.D.
Department of Program Evaluation

Holly Williams, Ph.D.
Authors
Karin Samii-Shore, M.A.
Michelle Batchelder, Ph. D.
Denise Pinon, Ph.D.
Board of Trustees
Doyle Valdez, President
Ingrid Taylor, Vice President
Ave Wahrmund, Secretary
Cheryl Bradley
Johna Edwards
John Fitzpatrick
Rudy Montoya, Jr.
Robert Schneider
Patricia Whiteside
Superintendent of Schools
Pascal D. Forgione, Jr., Ph.D.
Publication Number 02.04

July 2003

CREW: Department of Education: Ignite!: Austin Independent School District Response

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CREW: Department of Education: Ignite!: Austin Independent School District Response

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

Office ofthe Superintendent

July 31, 2007

Mr. Daniel C. Roth

RE: Information Request Received on July 18, 2007

Dear Mr. Roth:

1111 W. 6th Street 512-414-2412

7. All draft contracts or agreements with Ignite! Learning

11. All vendor purchase orders with Ignite! Learning.

12. All maintenance agreements with Ignite! Learning.

1111 W. 6th Street 512-414-2412

1111 W. 6th Street 512-414-2412

1111 W. 6th Street 512-414-2412

1111 W. 6th Street 512-414-2412

DATE: August 8, 2002

TO: Brenda Dalton, Assistant Director of Purchasing

THROUGH: Joy MCL~uty Superintendent

FROM: Jeff Meyer, Director of Instructional Technology

----- Forwarded by Peggy Gordon/CAC/AISO on 08/0612002 01 :49 PM -----

Gail Belcher To: Peggy Gordon/CAC/A1SO@AISO

Dear Dr. Gordon,

Date: August 7, 2002

Re: IGNITE Software

Ms. Gail Belcher

Number of Individual Courseware Pricing

'rotal Project $9,330.00

3. ADDITIONAL HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE:

4. INSTALLATION AND TECH.NICAL Sl'PPORT:

5. SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER:

6. NOTES AND COMME.NTS:

For Ignite ':

5. IGNITE! DISCLAIMS ALL EXPRESS OR [VIPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO

I School District to District ISP 45 Mbos (1800 Active Internet Browsers)

Classroom / Lab Computer Hardware Rqts

Headphones/Speakers 11 set per user. or tunctroruno speakers

PC IWind95. 98. NT or 2000

Mac IMacOS 8.5 and greater

Maxtor Administration i Ignlte l Identified oort enabled Inbound

HTIP & HTIPS : Ports Enabled outbound

Proxv Server ; No Cache of Ignite'. trattic

Ms. Patti Lyle

Ignite! Inc. \(-'.1\' \\ \\'C~ (":.\·,.{-·)r~C~ ,f=,\~('~lY'l

Number of Individual Courseware Pricing

Total Project $8,610.00

----- Forwarded by Peggy GordoniCAC/AISD on 08/06/2002 01 :49 PM -----

Gail Belcher To: Peggy Gordon/CAC/AISD@AISD

Dear Dr. Gordon,

Date: August 7, 2002

Re: IGNITE Software

l044 Research Boulevard Suite A-2~()

S1:2 .i·..1SS:'S:: ! 5l234."i.9:::5.~ tax

rACSDlILE TRA:--.IS:>IITTAL SHEET

SChool Clstnet to District ISP 45 ~ (1800 Active Intemet Browsers]

scnoo: :0 Classroom j Lao Switched 100Mb/secFull Duplex

Video Card 1~it

Moniter Coiors 1tH3il

PC 'Nind95, 98, NT or 2000

Ii HTTP & Hr-PS

'"(OxyServer No Cache of Ignite!traffic

April 29, 2002

Mr. Mike Saenz

Reference: Sole Source Letter

Dear Mr. Saenz:

LJ..,I~~~RY SYSTEMS, INC.