BENNINGTON-RUTLAND SUPERVISORY UNION

1. Call to Order 2. Public Comment BENNINGTON-RUTLAND SUPERVISORY UNION MANCHESTER ELEMENTARY-MIDDLE SCHOOL MEMS MEDIA CENTER MANCHESTER CTR, VT MONDAY, MARCH 30, 2015 7:00 PM AGENDA 3. Board Organization a. Elect Chair b. Elect Vice Chair c. Elect Clerk d. Authorize Chair to sign previously approved contracts e. Designate Newspapers (suggest: Rutland Herald and Bennington Banner) f. Designate Evaluation Committee Members g. Designate Governance Committee Members h. Designate Policy Committee Members i. Confirm Bargaining Council Members j. Appoint Sue Wilborn as the Treasurer of the BRSU for FY16 k. Discussion/Action - Proposed Board Meeting Dates 4. Recommendation to Approve Minutes a. BRSU - Special Meeting - Jan 7, 2015 7:00 PM 5. Report of the Superintendent of Schools a. Shall the Bennington-Rutland Supervisory Union be authorized by representatives of its member school districts to accept and administer financial grants b. Shall the Superintendent of Schools be granted the authority to execute contracts and orders on behalf of the Bennington-Rutland Supervisory Union? c. Discussion/Action - Authorization to Seek Transportation Waiver for FY2016 d. Discussion/Action - Review of Residential Placements in the BRSU SPED Assessments e. Discussion - BRSU Personalized Student Learning System: 2014 Survey Results f. Discussion - Data Systems g. Discussion - Update from Policy Committee h. Discussion - Legislative Update i. Discussion - 403(b) Company change from TD Wealth to TD Ameritrade 6. Appointments/Resignations a. Discussion - Teacher Reduction in Force - Add-On b. Discussion/Action - Teacher Hire Recommendation - Add-On 7. Other Business Bennington-Rutland Supervisory Union Page 1 Updated 3/30/2015 2:18 PM

Agenda Bennington-Rutland Supervisory Union March 30, 2015 8. Adjournment Bennington-Rutland Supervisory Union Page 2 Updated 3/30/2015 2:18 PM

1926 : Proposed Board Meeting Dates 3.k Bennington-Rutland Supervisory Union BRSU Sunderland, VT 05250 SCHEDULED Meeting: 03/30/15 07:00 PM Department: BRSU Category: Information Prepared By: Celeste Keel Initiator: Celeste Keel Sponsors: AGENDA ITEM (ID # 1926) DOC ID: 1926 Discussion/Action - Proposed Board Meeting Dates Below is the proposed dates from April 2015 through March 2016. All meetings will be held at the Manchester Elementary Middle School at 7pm unless otherwise noted. May 18, 2015 Aug 3, 2015 Sep 21, 2015 Oct 19, 2015 Nov 30, 2015 Dec 17, 2015 Mar 28, 2016 - Organizational Meeting Updated: 3/10/2015 9:49 AM by Celeste Keel Page 1 Board Organization Packet Pg. 3

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 7, 2015 7:00 PM 4.a BENNINGTON-RUTLAND SUPERVISORY UNION 1. Call to Order at 7pm by Sue Ceglowski WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2015 MINUTES PRESENT: Jennifer Louden, Vickie Haskins, Jim Salsgiver, Stephen Murphy, Brian Vogel, Wendell Coleman, Jon Mowry, Charlie Cave, Norma Weeden, Melanie Virgilio, Gordon Woodrow, Barb McNeill, George McNeill, Sue Ceglowski, Scarlett Duncan, Sue LaPorte, Marty Nadler, Daniel M. French, Jackie Wilson, Sue Wilborn, Daphne Tuthill ABSENT: David Chandler, Mark Kaplan, Sarah Donner, Arlene Bentley, Heidi French, Kristin Comeau 2. Recommendation to Approve Minutes a. BRSU - Special Meeting - Dec 1, 2014 7:00 PM Approved with correction in 4a....buy new buses NOT by new buses RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] Jim Salsgiver, Vice Chairman Scarlett Duncan, Board Member 3. Report of the Superintendent a. Discussion/Action - Recommendation Not to Centralize Paraeducators RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Scarlett Duncan, Board Member Brian Vogel, Board Member b. Discussion/Action - Approve Draft FY16 SPED Budget RESULT: APPROVED [16 TO 0] MOVER: Marty Nadler, Board Member SECONDER: Scarlett Duncan, Board Member AYES: Jennifer Louden, Vickie Haskins, Jim Salsgiver, Stephen Murphy, Brian Vogel, Wendell Coleman, Jon Mowry, Charlie Cave, Norma Weeden, Melanie Virgilio, Gordon Woodrow, George McNeill, Sue Ceglowski, Scarlett Duncan, Sue LaPorte, Marty Nadler RECUSED: Barb McNeill 4. Next Meeting Date: March 30, 2015 5. Other Business Marty Nadler discussed Burr and Burton Academy's (BBA) increased tuition rate. Dan stated that BBA's tuition increase is in line with the cost of living and is lower than public high schools in the area. Wendell Coleman asked what the cost of living increase was. Dan stated the cost of living is approximately 3%. 6. Motion to adjourn at 7:29pm RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Brian Vogel, Board Member Jim Salsgiver, Vice Chairman Respectfully submitted, Debbi Wraga Bennington-Rutland Supervisory Union Page 1 Updated 2/23/2015 9:27 AM Recommendation to Approve Minutes Packet Pg. 4

1947 : Discussion/Action - Review of SPED Residential 5.d Bennington-Rutland Supervisory Union BRSU Sunderland, VT 05250 SCHEDULED Meeting: 03/30/15 07:00 PM Department: BRSU Category: Budget Prepared By: Celeste Keel Initiator: Celeste Keel Sponsors: AGENDA ITEM (ID # 1947) DOC ID: 1947 Discussion/Action - Review of Residential Placements in the BRSU SPED Assessments Attached is a copy of the assessment page from the BRSU SPED Budget. Updated: 3/26/2015 8:27 AM by Celeste Keel Page 1 Report of the Superintendent of Schools Packet Pg. 5

Attachment: BRSU SPED assessment page 5.d.a BENNINGTON-RUTLAND SUPERVISORY UNION SPECIAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENTS - FY16 Total Danby Dorset Manchester Mt. Tabor Mtn Towns Pawlet Rupert Sunderland UD23 UD47 Winhall 1 PK Sites - Less Medicaid covered costs 2 Students at Site 9 26 3 Site Based Early Education $194,325 $107,680 $86,645 4 Early Education - Instruction 5 ADM (less site) 105 13 35 44 7 2 1 3 6 Percentage Allocation 12.4% 33.3% 41.9% 6.7% 1.9% 1.0% 2.9% 7 Early Education Instruction $131,405 $16,269 $43,801 $55,065 $8,762 $2,503 $1,251 $3,754 8 Early Education - Speech 9 ADM (less site for ud47) 114 13 35 44 7 11 1 3 10 Percentage Allocation 11.4% 30.7% 38.6% 6.1% 9.6% 0.9% 2.6% 11 Early Education Speech $109,632 $12,502 $33,659 $42,314 $6,731 $10,578 $961 $2,887 12 Instructional/Support Services 13 ADM 140 13 35 44 7 11 27 3 14 Percentage Allocation 9.3% 25.0% 31.4% 5.0% 7.9% 19.3% 2.1% 15 Early Ed Instructional Support Services $19,000 $1,764 $4,750 $5,972 $950 $1,493 $3,664 $407 16 Services K-6/8* - Includes Cornerstone Program, less IDEA covered costs 17 Projected FY16 Enrollment 1,172 5 191 298 0 265 1 1 71 94 160 86 18 Percentage Allocation 0.4% 16.3% 25.4% 0.0% 22.6% 0.1% 0.1% 6.1% 8.0% 13.7% 7.3% 19 Services K-6/8 $2,689,863 $11,486 $438,367 $683,951 $0 $608,205 $2,286 $2,286 $162,952 $215,727 $367,220 $197,383 20 Services 7/9-12* 21 Projected FY16 Enrollment 823 101 100 213 13 156 113 31 49 47 22 Percentage Allocation 12.3% 12.2% 25.9% 1.6% 19.0% 13.7% 3.8% 6.0% 5.7% 23 Services 7/9-12 $3,635,056 $446,094 $441,696 $940,789 $57,434 $688,988 $499,093 $136,933 $216,431 $207,598 24 Residential Placements $984,240 $707,000 $277,240 25 Behavior Anaylst/Psychological/OT/PT/Administration/Transportation - Less IDEA and Medicaid covered costs 26 Projected FY16 Enrollment 2,135 106 304 546 13 465 114 32 127 105 187 136 27 Percentage Allocation 5.0% 14.2% 25.6% 0.6% 21.8% 5.3% 1.5% 5.9% 4.9% 8.8% 6.4% 28 Psych/OT/PT/Admin/Transportation $880,887 $44,044 $125,086 $225,507 $5,287 $192,033 $46,687 $13,213 $51,972 $43,163 $77,518 $56,377 29 TOTAL FY16 ASSESSMENT $8,644,408 $501,624 $1,035,684 $1,932,457 $62,721 $2,299,577 $548,066 $152,432 $447,798 $381,144 $537,259 $745,646 * Grades 7 and 8 educated in one of our schools are included in the K-6/8 count rather than the 7/9-12 count SPED 16-Approved.xls Page 10 1947 : Discussion/Action - Review of SPED Residential Packet Pg. 6

1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results 5.e Bennington-Rutland Supervisory Union BRSU Sunderland, VT 05250 SCHEDULED Meeting: 03/30/15 07:00 PM Department: BRSU Category: Information Prepared By: Daniel M. French Initiator: Celeste Keel Sponsors: AGENDA ITEM (ID # 1916) DOC ID: 1916 Discussion - BRSU Personalized Student Learning System: 2014 Survey Results Attached is Dr. Silvernail's report on the results from the personalized student learning survey that was administered to teachers in June 2014. Updated: 3/30/2015 2:17 PM by Celeste Keel Page 1 Report of the Superintendent of Schools Packet Pg. 7

Technology and PLPs: Key Components in Developing the BRSU Personalized Learning System 2014 Teacher Survey Results Prepared by Dr. David L. Silvernail External Evaluator Director Center for Education Policy, Applied Research and Evaluation University of Southern Maine January 2015 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 8

Table of Contents Overview of Brief...1 Background...1 Technology Use in Personalizing Learning...5 Using Technology to Support the Development of a Personalized Learning System...11 The Use of Personalized Learning Plans...20 Summary and Recommended Next Steps...25 References...27 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 9

Technology and PLPs: Key Components in Developing the BRSU Personalized Learning System 2014 Teacher Survey Results David L Silvernail University of Southern Maine Overview of Brief This Brief reports the results from the second administration of the teacher survey in the Bennington-Rutland Supervisory Union (BRSU). The first survey, which focused exclusively on technology use by teachers, was administered in 2013. The same survey, with some changes and additions, was administered in Spring 2014. The goal of this project is to track technology use and implementation of personalized learning plans (PLPs) in the development of the BRSU personalized learning system and to use the data is to inform discussions and identify strategies for future professional development activities. Background The Bennington-Rutland Supervisory Union (BRSU) has embarked on a journey to fundamentally change the nature and delivery of K-8 education for the students in the supervisory union. As voiced by Superintendent Daniel French: For the first time in history, we have the tools to deliver on our progressive ideals: personalizing learning for all students. Personalizing learning means designing learning activities to support individual student growth irrespective of assigning grade level. Further, and as articulated on the BRSU website, achieving this vision is predicated on organizing the BRSU education system around two design principles: 1. Personalized learning for each student, and 2. Teachers and other educators should be connected in a common professional network to support instructional innovation To achieve this vision will require fundamental changes in the design, delivery, and documentation of learning and learning systems across the BRSU. It also requires fundamental shifts in teaching and learning paradigms, in the content and delivery of instruction, and it 1 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 10

requires creating a learning management system that supports these changes and promotes high standards of teaching and learning. Today many individuals, organizations, and even states are advocating for the type of personalized learning articulated in the vision for the BRSU. In fact, with passage of Act 77, Vermont has become one of the leaders in the fundamental revision of learning and learning systems. But translating the BRSU vision into reality is, and will continue to be, very difficult. The vision requires transformative changes in structures, processes, beliefs, and practices. And even though many at the national level are giving voice to this fundamental change in education, at present there is no clear roadmap to follow to ensure success. Clearly, the BRSU is charting a new course and exploring new territory. Thus, this makes it particularly important that the BRSU develop a system for monitoring progress, identifying areas needing attention, and documenting achievement of targets and milestones. One essential element of this monitoring system is the Ends and Monitoring Policies the school boards have adopted. Another is the development of an external evaluation system that is designed to assist the supervisory union as they transform the education system. This consultant has been asked by the BRSU superintendent and school boards to assist BRSU in monitoring the development of the new system by serving as an external formative evaluator. A key first step in the formative evaluation was the development of a Logic Model, a theory of action that described the connections between inputs, activities and outcomes for the BRSU. As noted by Silverstein in the Framework for Evaluating Impacts of Informal Science Education Projects (Friedman, 2008): Program staff and evaluators frequently use a logic model (sometimes called a theory of action ) to think through how they intend to achieve and document their intended outcomes. By illustrating the underlying rationale of a program or activity, logic models can be used to show how different facets of an intervention are linked. As such, they provided funders and stakeholders with a visual representation of the resources available to operate a set of activities-as as well as an overall framework of understanding the relationship between the program s inputs (i.e., resources and activities) and the changes or results those inputs are designed to achieve. They also provide evaluators with a useful roadmap for determining the range of questions that need to be 2 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 11

addressed as part of an overall assessment program implementation and impact. (p.35) A logic model depicts the assumed causal connections between variables, activities, and outputs. As part of the formative evaluation of the BRSU initiative, a Logic Model was developed in collaboration with the administrative staff. This model is being used in the monitoring of the development of the personalized learning system. Over the course of the past three years this external evaluation consultant has taken several steps to assist the BRSU in developing its new personalized learning system. He has, and continues to, provide the ongoing formative evaluation of the new BRSU education system. This has included numerous visits to the BRSU. During these visits, the consultant has met multiple times with the BRSU administrative staff, and has interviewed school leaders, teachers, other education staff, and some school board members from across the supervisory union. In addition, site visits, have been conducted in each of the BRSU schools over the course of the last two school years, and a sample of classrooms were visited and observed. Finally, documents and webbased materials have been, and continue to be, reviewed. This Brief describes the results of two key formative evaluation activities, the first being the collection of baseline and ongoing data on the use of technology across the supervisory union through the administration of a survey to the teaching staff. A key element in implementing the BRSU vision is the effective use of technology. This includes using technology to personalize learning for all learners and for supporting the creation of the supervisory union-wide personalized learning system. The 2014 survey also included the collection of baseline data on the implementation of PLPs, a second key formative evaluation activity. The goal in administering the survey has been to document the level of technology use and the implementation of PLPs, and to track use and implementation levels during the development of the BRSU personalized learning system. The survey used in this activity was designed to assess current practices in five core areas: (1) the use of technology in providing instruction; (2) the use of Haiku in developing and implementing a personalized learning system; (3) professional development needs; (4) the 3 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 12

current stages of adoption and diffusion of technology across the supervisory union; and (5) the implementation of personalized learning plans with students. The survey was developed by this consultant in collaboration with BRSU administrative staff. Survey items that have been used and validated in assessing other technology projects formed the basis of the survey, and BRSU staff suggested revisions and additions to capture unique features in the BRSU. In 2014 the original survey was reviewed by BRSU staff and a few minor changes were made in the wording of some survey items. In addition, a new section was added to the survey to collect information about the development and use of personalized learning plans (PLPs). The survey was first administrated in early June 2013, and then again in late spring 2014, using an Online Survey in Google Docs. All teachers in the BRSU were asked to complete the survey. Table 1 reports survey return rates by school for each year. Table 1: Technology Use Survey Return Rates School 2013 2014 Currier 13 7 Dorset 18 11 Flood Brook - 14 MEMS 14 45 Mettawee 22 13 Sunderland 7 7 Total 74 97 In 2103 a total of 72 teachers completed the survey by the close of the survey administration time period. This resulted in an overall return rate of 57%. In 2014 ninety-four (94) teachers completed the survey. As may be seen from the table, return rates varied considerably from year to year for some schools. A secondary analysis was conducted of the survey respondents, using information about the school respondents taught in and what grades they taught. In virtually all cases, the patterns of returns were similar. That is to say, for example a similar percent of returns from a particular school were from P/K-2 teachers. Just the number of 4 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 13

returns was different. Thus, it appears that most differences in responses from one year to the next are not the result of different respondent patterns. What follows is a description of the survey results from the BRSU teaching staff. In most cases of these survey results, the tables in this Brief include both 2013 and 2014 results. After describing the survey results several recommendations are offered. The BRSU school community is encouraged to discuss and deliberate on the evidence and recommendations in the course of identifying next steps in the development of the BRSU vision. Technology Use in Personalizing Learning BRSU have taken significant steps to move closer and closer to providing one-to-one technology capacity to all teachers and students across the supervisory union, a capacity found in Maine and other states and districts to be crucial in the robust integration of technology in curriculum and instruction. Evidence from Maine s experience in supporting one-to-one technology in the classroom has revealed that, if integrated properly, technology may substantially improve learning. Students can learn more, deeper, and quicker, and teachers may more effectively customize and differentiate their instruction to meet student needs (Silvernail et al; 2011). Selected classroom observations during visits to the supervisory union schools indicated it appears that many teachers are appropriately incorporating technology into their classrooms. That is to say, they are using technology to supplement, rather than supplant instruction. At the same time, the observations also suggest the level of integration of the technology into the learning process is somewhat uneven across and within schools. As was the case in 2013, these observations continue to be borne out in the 2014 survey results. Teachers were asked to indicate their level and frequency of use of technology in providing classroom instruction. Table 2 on the next page reports the five areas teachers indicated they use technology most frequently in providing instruction (i.e., use daily or a few times per week) for both 2013 and 2014. As may be seen from the evidence, technology is being used fairly frequently by students in performing certain learning tasks These include accessing learning tools, performing research tasks, in working in groups on tasks and projects, and to a 5 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 14

somewhat lesser degree in creating original products. Responses were similar for both years, except for two categories. Students using technology in group work was less in 2014, but use of technology in writing increased. An analysis of school level results indicates that group work use decreased the most, relatively speaking, in the Currier Memorial School and MEMS, while using technology in writing appears to have increased the most in the Dorset School and Mettawee Community School. An additional analysis by grade levels revealed that teachers in the upper elementary grades indicated that students use the technology to access Google tools, to present information, and in writing more often. In some case teachers were asked how often students performed these functions with or without using a laptop or tablet. The results reveal that the frequency with which students performs some tasks is not markedly different with or without technology. And the patterns of responses were similar for both years. For example, frequency of use in locating information is the same with or without the technology (i.e., 43.3%), and it is similar for the creation of original products (i.e., 33.8% vs. 33.0%). This suggests that in some areas the introduction of the technology has not increased the frequency of completing some learning tasks. Further, the evidence suggests there is the potential for growth in the use of technology in these areas, but as was recommended in the first report on technology use, it may be appropriate to first determine 6 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 15

if the frequency of completion of certain learning tasks using technology is already deemed to be at the appropriate level or does the use level simply reflect past practice and that greater use of technology might in fact enhance the learning for students. Table 3 reports the five areas listed on the survey in which technology is used least frequently. These use levels are in some of the areas often associated with 21 st Century skills, such as using simulation, communicating and consulting with other experts outside schools, and creating original media to demonstrate learning. It may be that the infrequent use of technology in these areas is more related to the enacted curriculum in the various BRSU schools than to perceptions about technology. That is to say, performing these types of tasks may not be even included in the curriculum, and that is why technology use in these areas is low. At the same time it is noteworthy to indicate that even though use levels are low in these five areas, use levels have increased in the second year, particularly in the areas of (1) using technology to create original media; (2) using simulations; and (3) presenting information to classmates. Regardless of frequency of use as described in Tables 2 and 3, teachers still believe there are many benefits from using technology with students. Tables 4 and 5 report some of the perceived benefits. Table 4 on the next page reports perceived benefits in an area that might be called Ease of Learning. As may be seen in the table, approximately one half to two-thirds of the teachers (48-65%) report that using technology in their curriculum and instruction helps their 7 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 16

students to be more actively involved in their learning, more engaged, more self-directed and that the technology makes it easier for them to do research and collect information. And while approximately 2 out of 5 teachers in 2013 believed using technology helps their students to be more organized and about one in three teachers believed the technology helps their students better understand what they are learning, the percent of respondents holding similar views in these two areas declined some in 2014. A secondary analysis revealed that the largest decline, relatively speaking, was in the Currier Memorial School responses and MEMS responses, with the greatest increase in the Mettawee Community School responses. An additional analysis indicated that teachers in grades 5-8 reported the greatest benefits for their students from using the technology tools. In terms of what might be called Quality of Learning, responses were very similar for each of the two years. While slightly over 40% of the teachers think that using technology helps students to learn quicker, only a third or less of the teachers believe using technology improves the quality of student learning. What is unclear from the evidence is if these perceptions about 8 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 17

the quality of learning reflect teachers fundamental beliefs about technology or situational perceptions. In-other-words, would the frequency of use impact these perceptions? Evidence from Maine, where using technology (e.g., laptops) has increased over the last decade, reveals that teachers perceived benefits of the technology became more positive with increased use of technology. Thus, some present perceptions in the BRSU about the benefits of technology may be related to the frequency of use levels and may increase with increased use of technology in teaching and learning. Evidence from national studies indicates there may be many reasons why technology integration is not greater in schools and classrooms, and it is important to understand these barriers. Accordingly, teachers were asked to identify what they perceived as barriers to using technology in their instruction with students. Table 6 on the next page reports teachers perceived barriers. The evidence from both years reveal three key findings. First, it is noteworthy that none of the barriers are considered Large to Very Large by a majority of teachers. All the barriers are identified as major barriers, but by less than one-half the teachers, and in several cases, by less than one-quarter of the teachers. Thus, there does not appear to be insurmountable barriers present in the supervisory union. 9 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 18

Second, while the greatest barriers in 2013, relatively speaking, were in the area of the technology infrastructure in the BRSU, the perception about the magnitude of these barriers decreased in 2014. In 2013 approximately 40-45% of the teachers identify the connectivity and stability of the network as a Large or Very Large barrier, as well as not having working devices for students. In most cases the magnitude of these perceived barriers was cut in half in 2014. This is important because experience in other settings have shown that when teachers experience problems with the technology they become frustrated and choose not to continue trying to integrate the technology into their curriculum and instruction. Third, compatibility with one s teaching philosophy, or the amount of work needed to make changes in the curriculum are also mentioned by some teachers as major barriers to technology integration. Relatively speaking, these are not major barriers for a majority of BRSU teachers, but the evidence from 2014 suggest more teachers are feeling these are large barriers for them. It is also important to note that approximately 40% of the teachers perceive competing priorities to be a barrier to greater technology integration. This concern is fairly typical on the 10 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 19

part of teachers, and thus it is not unique to the BRSU, but it is an area needing constant attention to prevent reform fatigue on the part of staff. In summary, in the area of teachers using technology to enhance and personalize learning more, the evidence from both years indicates that a majority of the teachers are presently using technology in their instruction at moderate levels for traditional learning tasks. Use levels are substantially lower in terms of what are considered 21 st century skill areas, but improving in some areas. Teachers do believe that using technology makes some learning easier, but there is no consensus as to the value of technology in improving the quality of learning. And finally, while a fairly substantial percentage of teachers in 2013 believed that a barrier to greater technology use was the state of the technology infrastructure in support of the delivery of instruction, the magnitude of this barrier has been reduced by 2014. Using Technology to Support the Development of a Personalized Learning System An absolutely essential component for a truly personalized learning system is a robust Learning Management System. Evidence from other states and school districts attempting to create standards-based, personalized learning systems report that one of the major obstacles in developing these type of systems is the lack of appropriate levels of technology and technology infrastructures. To its credit, the BRSU schools and school boards have invested significant time and resources in developing and implementing structures to support teachers and staff in developing curriculum and instruction collaboratively, providing professional development, and facilitating the delivery and documentation of learning. The adoption of Haiku and the creation of multiple LMS support systems has provided a sound basis for the development, delivery, and documentation of personalized learning. The BRSU staff is to be commended for the significant work that has taken place in creating a robust Learning Management System, and the school boards are to be commended for their support of building the technology and LMS infrastructures. Based on the site visit observations and interviews of staff and teachers over the course of the last two years, this formative evaluator found evidence indicating that active use of the LMS and all its capacity has increased and more teachers are using the Haiku system to create and 11 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 20

post learning resources. However, even though use levels have increased, there still is considerable room to grow. The survey evidence provides additional information on use levels and perceived barriers in using the technology and technology tools. Tables 7 and 8 report teachers use of Haiku in support of creating a personalized learning system for students for 2013 and 2014. In the case of the evidence in Table 7, teachers were asked about a multitude of uses of the Haiku system. This multitude of uses was clustered into four areas and average composite scores were calculated for each area. The table lists these four areas along with average frequency of use levels by teachers. The evidence reveals that in 2014 teachers are still using one or more aspects of Haiku less than once a week in all four clustered areas. The one area where there was some increased use was in the area of using the Resource Library, an area that was targeted for professional development during the past year. Use in this area increased in four out of five of the schools with both 2013 and 2014 data. (No data was collected from the Flood Brook school in 2013.) The evidence in Table 8 indicates only a small percentage of the teachers in both years report using the system to design and share content. The one area showing an overall significant increase was using Haiku in collaborating with colleagues. Use in this area increased almost three-fold. Most schools showed substantial increases in this area, with the greatest increased 12 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 21

found in the Dorset School and the Sunderland Elementary School. One school showed a substantial increase in teachers using the Haiku system to share content and that was Currier Memorial School. Increases in these areas are important to the long term development of the personalized learning system, and hopefully this increased collaboration will continue to grow and lead to more collaboration with colleagues in the design and sharing of curriculum content. Again, as reported in earlier secondary analyses, upper elementary grade teachers, particularly 7-8 teachers, indicate they are using Haiku more often in developing a personalized learning system for their students. Some teachers at all grade levels believe the Haiku system helps them more personalize learning for their students. A sample of teacher comments include: Haiku is very helpful for me to support personalized learning for students in grades 4-6 when I do club work with students after school. It gives me the chance to post my lesson options, but also to post a variety of web resources for students to use, based on their needs/abilities. I appreciate being able to assign students their own assignments discretely and differentiating the content of a lesson or assessment based on their needs. I can use it to allow projects to be adapted to different students needs. Some may write an essay while others present facts in a power point, but it covers the same topics and [individualizes learning]. 13 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 22

Other teachers see the potential for using the Haiku system to personalize learning, but feel they need more training and professional development in its use. For example, teachers made comments like the following: I feel that I need more training to understand how to utilize wiki projects and e- portfolio. I would like to use Haiku more next year. I think it could be helpful to support personalized learning. I do feel I need more training before I can use it more effectively. I am comfortable with my current usage of the system but understand that there is probably more I could be doing with it if I had some additional training. I believe I just need more experience and see various ways that Haiku might help to meet the needs of my students. Teachers perception of the Haiku system can also be instructive in helping to understand the current use levels, and signal where changes could be made to facilitate greater use of the system. Table 9 reports these teacher perceptions. As was found in 2013, some teachers in 2014 14 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 23

indicated they have concerns about the nature and transparency of using the system to post materials, and they indicate they prefer to use other systems (e.g., Internet, other social media systems) to find materials and communicate with colleagues. Network stability and connectivity problems have substantially declined but many still report that they experience difficulty in navigating the system. Sample comments made by teachers about the system include: I find Haiku challenging to navigate at times and spend too much time trying to figure out things. I feel at this point with what I know and can do, I m faster and more efficient without Haiku. Haiku is a pile of information. Everything is on top of everything else and it is hard to navigate. I want something user friendly and efficient, and don t always feel that Haiku is the answer. [The] lack of search capability in Haiku; too many layers to find things now that we ve all put content on it. The system is too complicated. You have to get 12 clicks in to find anything and you have to know where thing are. It is in no way intuitive or user friendly. In addition, over one-half of the teachers report they need additional training before they may use the system more effectively. These teacher perceptions were almost universally held across all schools. The similarity in responses from teachers in both years suggests the need for an ongoing program for enhancing the system and providing training for teachers. Thus, the evidence from both years indicates that the use of the technology system to create personalized learning curriculum remains uneven. Uneven levels of adoption of an innovation, such as creating a personalized learning system, are to be expected. But it also highlights the importance of continued professional development. Accordingly, teachers were asked their professional development priorities in both 2013 and 2014and their most preferred mode of professional development support. Their responses appear in Tables 10 and 11. The evidence in Table 10 indicates that teachers have a variety of professional development needs, and all are of high priority to some teachers, in both 2013 and 2014. But overall there was a decline in 2014 in the percent of teachers who listed these professional development priorities as high to critical priorities. In all cases, when taken in the aggregate, 15 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 24

these are listed as top priorities by approximately one-third of the teachers across the supervisory union. But, a secondary analysis by school highlights some differences among the schools. For three of the schools, Currier Memorial School, MEMS and Sunderland Elementary School, the decline in priorities mirrored the overall picture for the supervisory union. In the case of Mettawee Community School, the priorities did not change from year to year. For the Dorset School two priority areas showed an increase in need, observing content-area experts and learning how to help students evaluate the Internet. In 2014 Flood Brook school saw the lowest percent of teachers listing these professional development areas as high to critical priorities, substantially lower than any other school. What is unclear in the Flood Brook School case is if the respondents are representative of the entire teaching staff at the school. Teachers across the BRSU commented about specific professional development needs. Some made comments like the following when asked what type of professional development for personalized student learning is most critical for them: Teaching students how to effectively use the system to create and maintain their PLPs. How to better meet students needs in individualized mathematics instruction. 16 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 25

How to get students to take more ownership of the personalized learning. How to implement it in the primary grades. Regardless of the priorities of need, teachers continued to indicate they would like to see a variety of formats used in their professional development. As reported in Table 11, modes of desired support were similar in both years. In 2014 a majority of teachers (65%+) prefer after school and/or summer workshops, and over 7 out of 10 teachers see value in targeting assistance through the horizontal and vertical teams. Approximately 90% of the teachers indicate they would prefer face-to-face training. However, there were some differences in mode of preferences among some of the schools. Teachers in the Dorset school exhibited a marked increase in the preference for after-school workshops, an increase from approximately 55% to 90%. On-the-other-hand, teachers in MEMS showed a substantial decline in this preferred mode of support. In the Mettawee Community School, fewer teachers indicated they preferred yearlong graduate coursework, while in the Sunderland Elementary School almost all modes of support exhibited marked increases, most notably for after school and summer workshops and year-long graduate coursework. These differences may play a critical role in designing future 17 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 26

professional development support that fit the needs in individual schools within the supervisory union. But a sentiment voiced often by teachers across the BRSU was their preference for the opportunity to learn from each other. Teachers commented: I feel like I need more time to develop it in my classroom and school first, to see how it goes and what comes up. Most important is probably having time to work with colleagues in school and across schools to trouble shoot and hear what s working well for others (or not working well. I would like to see how an experienced teacher keeps track of a large group of students with their journey of personalized learning. I would love to have the opportunity to see more examples of what other teachers in our district and outside our district are using and creating as they strive for personalized learning. Some sort of PLP workshop. I understand the concept, I need to know what it looks like and how some others have it in order to make my own plans. As discussed in the 2013 technology use report, the unevenness in the use of technology both for providing classroom instruction and for developing the personalized learning system may be in part reflective of the realities of what is called the innovation curve. Rogers (1995) and many others have studied the process by which innovative ideas and technology become adopted and diffused throughout an organization. They have been able to identify different types of adopters, the dispositions of these different adopters, and strategies for moving individuals and organizations through the diffusion S-curve. This research also shows that specific steps may be taken to increase levels of adoption and use. Moore s work (2002) on the innovation curve has also documented the potential dangers for the integration of an innovation of what he describes as never crossing the chasm from Early Adopters to Early Majority adopters. BRSU teachers were asked both in the 2013 and 2014 surveys to characterize their level of use and perceptions of technology. Chart 1 presents the continuum teachers were asked to place themselves on, from what Rogers labels as Innovators to Laggards. Table 12 provides a profile of the BRSU teachers in 2013 and 2014 in terms of Roger s stages and shows a comparison of the BRSU profiles in both years. Over one-third of teachers describe themselves in Innovator or Early Adopter terms in both years. Additionally, more teachers in 2014 are reporting they use 18 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 27

technology frequently as an integral part of their curriculum and daily classroom instruction. This continuing shift toward more technology use in curriculum development and instruction is encouraging news in that it indicates the BRSU is continuing the integration of technology in developing the personalized learning system. It is also important to recognize that the percent of teachers self-defining themselves as Early Majority and Late Majority adopters has increased somewhat. Innovators and Early Adopters are self-driven to try innovations, whereas Early Majority adopters are willing to incorporate new things that their colleagues talk about and Late Majority adopters want to be shown how and to have time to practice new things. These two groups may be characterized as show me, and tell me about it types of innovation adopters. This suggests that more teachers are learning for each other and it suggests that continued support of peer professional development opportunities may continue to play a critical role in increasing technology integration in the future. Chart 1: Roger s Diffusion of New Ideas and Technology a. I actively experiment with new ways to incorporate technology into my teaching. I am usually the first person in my school to try something out, and I am in touch with technology innovations that are happening in other schools and states. (Innovators) b. I use technology frequently as an integral part of my curriculum and daily classroom activities. I am not on the cutting edge, but I am eager to try things that sound interesting or might be an improvement. I'm willing to figure some things out on my own, and other teachers often ask me for help or advice about technology. (Early adapters) c. I regularly use technology in my classroom with students, although not as much as some of the other teachers at my school. I believe technology is effective, and am willing to incorporate new things that my colleagues talk about in meetings or the staff room. It's best to let others figure out the major kinks before I spend too much time learning something new. (Early majority) d. I am not a big technology user in my classroom, although I use it occasionally. I have tried some things that have worked well for other teachers I trust, once I have been shown how and had a chance to practice with someone. I believe laptops can be useful for some types of things, but I'm not convinced they are necessary. (Late majority) e. I use the instructional technologies very little or not at all in my classroom. I do 19 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 28

not believe instructional technologies are necessarily helpful for student learning. (Laggards) The Use of Personalized Learning Plans In 2014 a section was added to the survey to collect baseline information on the development and implementation of personalized learning plans (PLPs). In addition to technology integration, PLPs are a critical component of the new BRSU learning system. Thus, the 2014 survey was used to collect baseline information on how often and in what ways were PLPs being integrated into the personalized learning of students. The information in Tables 13 and 14 20 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 29

indicate that teachers are having their students use their PLP to set, monitor, and update their progress and goals on average once each trimester. Tables 15 and 16 report how often teachers build time into the class regular routine for 21 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 30

students to update their PLPs and time for students to reflect upon their PLP progress. The evidence indicates that approximately one-half of the teachers report building this time into their regular routine once a trimester. Some build the time in more frequently, but approximately onethird of the teachers indicate they never set aside time in their regular routine to students to update and reflect on their PLPs. Understanding why this is the case, and what may be done to 22 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 31

increase this activity will be important to the continued development of the personalized learning system. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Table 17. Did your students submit theirplps using Haiku? 70.8% 23.6% 2.8% 2.8% Never Once a Trimester Once a Month More Frequently Did your students submit their PLPs using Haiku? Table 17 reports how often students submit their PLPs using Haiku. As shown in the table, teachers report that in less than one-third of the cases are students using Haiku in this fashion. Why this is the case is unclear from the survey evidence, and while there is some variance among the schools, attempting to understand why this is the case warrants attention at each school. Finally, Tables 18 and 19 report evidence of how students manage their PLPs and how they use them in student led conferences. Teachers were asked to indicate on a 1 to 4 scale to what degree these activities take place, with 4 indicating a greater degree of use. The evidence indicates that many students are not being asked to manage their PLPs independently, and many 23 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 32

teachers are not having students share their learning in student-led conferences. Because both of these activities are goals of the program it will be important to understand the reasons these activities are not happening more often. 24 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 33

Summary and Recommended Next Steps The evidence from the second survey administration indicates that progress has been made in teachers using the BRSU technology infrastructure in developing the personalized learning system envisioned in the BRSU. Use levels remain uneven across and within the BRSU schools, and in some cases below what might be considered desired levels. Some of this is expected given the basic decentralized organizational structure of the supervisory union and the fact that diffusion and adoption of innovations, such as the personalized learning system, is complex, and messy at times. But it is important to note that overall steady progress has been made during the past year. There are variations in adoption and use across schools, and schools report some differences in professional development needs. However, fairly consistently across the schools and across all schools teachers expressed some common barriers to further developments of the personalized learning system, and these barriers are most often expressed in terms of needed training is using the technology system and in making the Haiku system more intuitive and userfriendly. Accordingly, several actions are suggested that may enhance the continued and further development of the BRSU learning system. These are: 1. The survey results should be shared and discussed with each school faculty, and these discussions should facilitate the identification by each school of future targeted professional development activities. 2. Each school, and the BRSU should identify ways they may enhance their ability to reach Early Majority and Late Majority adopters through the use of peer teachers. 3. The current Haiku system should be reviewed by users for determining its ease of use, and the system should be modified accordingly. 4. Additional training across the BRSU, and within each school, should be provided to teachers in how to use the technology infrastructure more effectively. 5. More information should be collected on the challenges and benefits teachers are experiencing in implementing PLPs. In summary, considerable progress is being made across the BRSU in developing the personalized learning system. The BRSU, each school and each school faculty, are to be commended on the progress they have made in designing, developing, and implementing the 25 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 34

BRSU personalized learning system. At the same time the evidence from the survey indicates that there is still a considerable amount of steady work ahead. The actions suggested above, although not innovative, may none-the-less prove fruitful to the continued progress of the BRSU in achieving its vision of learning for their students. 26 1916 : 2014 Teacher Survey Results Packet Pg. 35