Community Members: Email your questions and feedback to techplan@psusd.us.


Note: This website contains only DRAFT material generated by the technology planning committee. The content has not been presented to - or approved by - the board of education. The site does not include built in spell check or grammar check, and many typographical errors remain on these pages. This will be rectified in the first draft of the complete document. Please accept our invitation to view (and offer feedback on) this work in progress.




Funding and Budgeting


This section of the wiki is provided for discussion and collaboration related to the Funding and Budgeting component of the technology plan. Please share your thoughts below by clicking on Edit This Page above.

Subcommittee Lead: Evelyn Hernandez
Subcommittee Members: Will Carr, Fernando Cabeje, Brian Murray

Guiding Questions (May appear as an appendix.)

a. List of established and potential funding sources and cost savings, present and future.

Funding Sources

The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following established and potential sources of educational technology funding for the District. Many sources are annotated with former or alternative names and with potential uses.

  • AB 430 Administrator Training Program (Formerly Principal Training Program [AB 75]) - PD for all new administrators
  • Agua Caliente Grants
  • After School Education and Safety (Proposition 49)
  • Anderson Grants (Competative valley-wide, up to 20k for computers, usually smaller)
  • BTSA (Standard 9 and 16) - PD for all new teachers
  • CAHSEE Intensive Instruction and Services (Diagnostic assessment and interpretive materials)
  • CAHSEE Supplemental Materials (Electronic Format) - Possible next year, 2007-2008
  • California High School Partnership Academy Grants (currently at PSHS)
  • Career Technical Education Equipment Funds
  • Cochella Valley Economic Parnership (CVEP) matching grants
  • Perkins Funds - must be tied to career pathways and/or sequence of classes
  • Discretionary Block Grant (School and District, School use depends on site plans)
  • District General Fund (TIS department, "lottery money" for wiring)
  • E-Rate (Phones Only)
  • EIA/LEP Funds (Use sepends on site plans and district ELD coordinator)
  • ELL Supplemental Instructional Materials
  • G.O. Bonds (To wire new schools)
  • High Priority Schools Grant Program (3 schools identified, based on site plan - funding only at two sites now: DHSHS & JC)
  • Indian Wells Grants (Competative, $3000 each)
  • Instructional Materials, Library Materials, and Education Technology Block Grant (Paying for CUE conference for administrators, otherwise undetermined)
  • Instructional Materials Block Grant (IMF) - "This program is also a vehicle to provide other instructional materials, including supplementary and technology-based materials, once every student has a basic textbook in each core area."
  • K12 Voucher Program (Microsoft Settlement) - approx. $2 mil expected
  • Palm Springs High School Foundation ("Academic Boosters" funding depends on foundation decisions)
  • PTO (Site Based... very limited)
  • RCOE Regional Occupation Program (ROP)
  • School and Library Improvement Block Grant (SB825 Bock Grant, SIP and library now combined) - used for hardware and software
  • School Enrichment Block Grant - Possible next year, 2007-2008
  • Small Learning Communities Grant (Palm Springs High School)
  • SSPs that estalish Career Academies
  • State Technology Fund (One-Time Fund)
  • Title I Funds (Depends on site plan)
  • Title II Funds (Tech PD for teachers)
  • Title II-D: EETT (Formual and Competative) - Note formula grant down 45%, expected to drop more
  • Title III Funds (For ELD software and hardware)
  • Title IV, Part B, 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program (Not currently applied)
  • Title V Funds (Primarily for Salaries, including Tech Salaries, Including Ed Tech Specialist, some software licenses)

Regarding donations, any donated computers or equipment must meet the Ditrict minimum specifications for donated equipment. (See appendix X for details). It is also recognized as important that the District collect the necessary disposal fees for any donated equipment.

Savings Sources

The Educational Technology Planning Committee has also identified the following savings sources of cost savings for the District. Some sources are annoted with additional details.

  • CalSave
  • CDW-G Education
  • CMAS Contract The California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) - Requires a 1% fee, which vendors often pay. Most resellers and sellers are involved.
  • Coporate partnership with Apple, Inc.
  • Educational Discounts whenever available
  • Microsoft Select License
  • PEPPM - This contract for state organizations includes a spreadsheet of vendors for general technology needs that can be met by multiple resellers. If purchases are made from this list, going to bid may be unnecessary.
  • WSCA Contract - Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA)

The District continues to seek additional funding sources and cost savings on an ongoing bases. Tools such as the SSCal CAT Wizard, CLRN, TechSets, and TICAL have proven valuable in this regard, as have e-mail alerts from the State and County departments of education. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee will reveiw funding sources, including any new potential funding sources, at each quarterly meeting. To ensure adequate funding to implement and maintain existing and new district technology initiatives, all potential funding sources will be evaluated and coordinated on an ongoing basis. Furthermore, budget constraints necessitate a close examination of one time or new costs versus recurring costs of maintaining district services and infrastructure.


b. Estimate implementation costs for the term of the plan (three to five years).

The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with implementing the Curriculum, Professional Development, and Infrastructure sections of this plan. The major anticipated costs are broken out by professional development, technical support, software, hardware, and infrastructure costs. Estimated amounts are given either on a per year basis or for each year of the plan. These figures are intended for planning purposes only. They are not meant for accounting purposes, nor are they meant to represent a commitment by the District to fully fund each of these needs. These costs must be prioritized along with the costs of other district business, including the construction of new schools.


Professional Development

The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with professional development:
  • Technology coaches are one key element of the professional development plan. See section 4d for more details on the role of technology coaches. The level of support the coaches can provide will depend on which of the following funding models is adopted:
    • Model 1 - A stipend is provided for 1 coach per elementary school, and 4 coaches per secondary school (one for each core subject area), and 1 coach per alternative school (only 2 total). Each coach would receive the maximum stipend of 7.5% of their salary. (This model is used to calculate the professional development total costs below.) Approximate Cost: $255k/yr.
    • Model 2 - Release time (20%) is provided for one coach per school. Approximate cost: $360k to $500k annually.
    • Model 3 - A full time technology coach (a Teacher On Special Assignment, or TOSA) is provided for each school site. Approximate Cost: $1.8m to $2.5m.
  • The existing Educational Technology Specialist (or Coordinator) has been instrumental in the success of the EETT grants. This position will be retained to provide support and leadership for technology coaches at each site. Estimated Cost: $101k to $137k
  • All certificated employees will complete a process of CTAP Level 1 and Level 2 certification. This custom District-specific process will include the professional development necessary to support goals 4b.1 (teaching the standards with technology), 4b.2 (teaching 21st century skills with technology), 4b.3 (teaching the technology scope and sequence), 4b.4 (teaching information literacy), 4b.6 (using technology to make data driven decisions), and 4b.7 (using technology to be accessible to parents). This process will include 4 full days of professional development for each teacher each year (1 day per quarter). A separate curriculum will be offered for technology coaches. (Note: One sub day at $120 for all 1200 teachers costs approximately 144k. Trainers, food, and facilities cost approximately an additional 80k, for a subtotal of $224,000 per day.) Total approximate cost: $896k/yr
  • In addition, one-to-one pilot teachers will receive an additional day of training per quarter. This supports goal 4b.5.
    • 2007-2008 - Four days of training for three teachers (including the cost of substitutes, trainers, food, and facilities): $5k
    • 2008-2009 - Four days of training for nine teachers (including the cost of substitutes, trainers, food and facilities): $15k
    • 2009-2010 - Four days of training for thirty-one teachers (including substitutes, trainers, food, and facilities): $52k
  • All classified employees who use a computer as part of their job will also complete a process equivalent to CTAP Level 1 certification. This supports goal 4b.9. A full time classified technology trainer will be provided to lead these trainings and create supporting documentation. Approximate Cost: $80k/yr
  • All necessary TIS employees will receive certification in the hardware and software they must administer and support. This includes certification repairing and supporting Apple computers so that the district can serve as a certified Apple repair center. Approximate Cost: $75k/yr.

Professional Development Totals:
  • 2007-2008: $1.45m
  • 2008-2009: $1.45m
  • 2009-2010: $1.5m

Figure 6.1 Professional Development Costs:


Technical Support

The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with technical suport staffing (See section 5b and goal 5c.5. for more detail):
  • Baseline (5 Technicians): $335,330
  • 2007-2008 (7 Technicians): $469,462
  • 2008-2009 (10 Technicians): $670,660
  • 2009-2010 (14 Technicians): $938,924

Figure 6.2 Technical Support Costs:
Spreadsheet:


Software

The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with computer software purchases or subscriptions:
  • Zangle student information system: $130k/yr
  • Galaxy financial software: $120k/yr
  • Data Director: $15k/yr
  • Destiny Library Catalog System: $5k/y
  • Internet filtering: $5k/yr
  • eMail filtering: $5k/yr
  • Additional ELRs, including Renaissance Place: $50k/yr

Software Totals:
  • 2007-2008: $330k
  • 2008-2009: $330k
  • 2009-2010: $330k

Figure 6.3 Software Costs:


Hardware

The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with computer hardware:
  • Student-to-Computer Ratio: Figure 6.2 below depicts the cost of computers needed each year (2007-2010) to replace aging computers, account for the estimated growth in the student population, and still reduce the student to computer ratio as dictated by curriculum objectives 3f.1.1 through 3f.1.5.
    • Benchmark 2007-2008 (7:1): $2.9m
    • Benchmark 2008-2009 (6:1): $2m
    • Benchmark 2009-2010 (5:1): $2.1m
>
Figure 6.4 Student-to-Computer Ratio Costs:

  • One-to-One Pilot Program: Figure 6.3 below depicts the costs of computers needed each year (2007-2010) to implement the one-to-one pilot programs called for by curriculum objective 3f.1.6.
    • Benchmark 2007-2008: $.6m
    • Benchmark 2008-2009: $1.2m (Note: this can account for the $1 million of new and growth costs above.)
    • Benchmark 2009-2010: $2m (Note: this can account for the $1.3 million of new and growth costs above.)

Figure 6.5 One-to-One Computer Costs:

  • Teacher and Administrator computers: There are currently approximately 2000 administrative computers in use districtwide. These will be replaced at a rate of 20% per year, starting with the oldest machines and/or the greatest need. (See section 6d below.) Estimated Cost: Approximately $600k/yr.

Hardware Totals (Note that there can be some overlap in these costs, see above):
  • 2007-2008: $4m
  • 2008-2009: $2.8m
  • 2009-2010: $4.1m

Figure 6.6 Hardware Cots:


Infrastructure

The Educational Technology Planning Committee has identified the following anticipated costs associated with network infrastructure:
  • Internet Service (from RCOE): $60k/yr
  • Microwave radio tower yearly maintenance: $60k/yr
  • SmartNet maintenance for critical network switches and routers: $15k/yr
  • Bandwidth capacity - new WAN switches are already purchased: $0/yr
  • Bandwidth capacity - new LAN switches as required: $15k/yr
  • Bandwidth capactiy - new Wireless switches (and data drops): Approximately $750 per access point.
    • 2007-2008: All High Schools (42 Cisco 1200's each): $95k
    • 2008-2009: All Elementary Schools (15 Cisco 1200's each): $169k
    • 2009-2010: Any remaining instructional areas : $20k
  • Bandwidth capacity - new wireless switches (and data drops) for one-to-one classrooms: Approximately $2000 per classroom ($1500 for access points and $500 for data drops)
    • 2007-2008: Three classrooms - $6k
    • 2008-2009: Six new classrooms - $12k
    • 2009-2010: Twenty-two new classrooms - $44k
  • Physical plant - additions and changes (primarily data drops): $30k/yr

Infrastructure Totals:
  • 2007-2008: $281k
  • 2008-2009: $361k
  • 2009-2010: $244k

Figure 6.7 Infrastructure Costs:


Overall Costs

The overall annual costs of this plan are summarized below.
  • 2007-2008: $5.9m
  • 2008-2009: $4.9m
  • 2009-2010: $6.5m
  • Average Cost: $5.8m/yr

Figure 6.8 Overall Costs:
Spreadsheet:

These figures are intended for planning purposes only. They are not meant for accounting purposes, nor are they meant to represent a commitment by the District to fully fund each of these needs. These costs must be prioritized along with the costs of other district business, including the construction of new schools.

The greatest budget challenges for technology facing the District is going to be maintaining up-to-date student and teacher computers (less than 5 years old) as well as providing timely technical support. Given the uncertainty of the educational technology sources of funding, the District has established the following priorities list to guide allocation:
  1. Infrastructure
  2. Updated teacher/administrator computers
  3. Increased technical support
  4. Staff development for teachers and administrators on computer basics and integration
  5. Training (Level I and Level II)
  6. Updated student computers
  7. Curricular software subscriptions

The District will implement the three year technology plan with the known annual technology funding and with new funding opportunities that may arise. Regardless of the level of funding, the District plans to set aside approximately 25% of the annual technology budget for professional development with the remaining 75% going toward hardware, software, infrastructure, technical support, and other costs.


c. Description of the level of ongoing technical support the district will provide.

Please see the discussion of technical support in sections 5a. and 5b., the technical support goal (5c.5.), and the technical support cost estimates in section 6b. above.


d. Description of the district’s replacement policy for obsolete equipment.

All administrative computers (including teacher computers) will be replaced every five years. This requires a replacement rate of 20% per year, with priority going to the oldest computers and the users with the highest need. Over the durration of this plan, 60% of all administrative computers, or approximately 1200 computers will be replaced. See the cost estimate of this replacement section 6b. above.

Funding permitting, the same pattern will be followed for student computers. However, so many of these machines are already more than five years old that replacement costs will be disproportionately high during the first three years of replacement (the duration of this plan). In addition, more new computers will be added in order to accomodate the expected growth of the student body and to lower the student-to-computer ratio as required by curriculum objectives 3f.1.1 through 3f.1.5. See the cost estimates of this replacement plan in section 6b. above.

Printers will only be replaced when they are no longer functional, and only as funding allows. Most staff members, including faculty, can now print to the networked copiers. Other peripherals are replaced as they fail, or as needed. The same policy will be followed with the switches, wireless access points, and other elements of the network infrastructure, such as data drops. Note that much of the network backbone is already scheduled to be upgraded during the duration of this plan, as per infrastructure objective 5c.3.2.

e. Description of the feedback loop used to monitor progress and update funding and budget decisions.

This section of the plan will be monitored and evaluated by The District Educational Technology Advisory Committee. See sections 3i & j for additional detail about the advisory committee. The Advisory Committee will meet quarterly to coordinate technology use between programs, to focus on technology needs, and to integrate the implementation of the above goals into existing programs. The advisory committee will support the monitoring and evaluation of this section of the plan by...
  • monitoring and evaluating existing and potential funding sources.
  • monitoring and evaluating existing and potential savings sources.
  • monitoring and evaluating District survey results to measure progress on benchmarks district-wide.
  • monitoring and evaluating state technology survey results as necessary.
  • acting on their analysis of the above evaluations to improve implementation of the tech plan goals as needed.
  • annually reviewing progress on technology plan benchmarks, evaluating the effectiveness of the technology plan, and revising the technology plan as needed.

A Funding Subcommittee will be formed to focus on issues relevant to this section of the plan, and to provide support and guidance in these matters for the Advisory Committee as a whole. Educational technology funding will be evaluated by the subcommittee and reported to the advisory committee on a quarterly basis. For this purpose, Galaxy reports of technology spending and available budget will be generated and reviewed quarterly. Which funds should be reviewed and how they should be reviewed will be established during the first meeting of the subcommitee, using this section of the tech plan as a guide. (For Example, technician salaries might only need to be reviewed once a year, but replaced computers might be reviewed quarterly.) The educational technology plan will then be adjusted as necessary on an annual basis.