Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Report
on
The
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Ad
Hoc
Committee
August
26,
2014
Committed
to
the
Board
of
Education
of
the
City
of
Los
Angeles
Governing
Board
of
The
Los
Angeles
Unified
School
District
ii
BOARD OF EDUCATION
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
MNICA RATLIFF
Board Member, District 6
August
26,
2014
Hon.
Richard
Vladovic
President
of
the
Governing
Board
of
the
Los
Angeles
Unified
School
District
333
S.
Beaudry
Ave.,
24th
Floor
Los
Angeles,
CA
90017
Re:
Chairs
Report
on
the
CCTP
Ad
Hoc
Committee
Dear
Dr.
Vladovic:
As
the
Chairperson
of
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Ad
Hoc
Committee,
I
am
filing
for
presentation
to
the
Governing
Board
of
the
Los
Angeles
Unified
School
District
the
enclosed
Chairs
Report.
From
now
through
8:00
p.m.
Pacific
Daylight
Time
on
September
8,
2014,
I
will
be
collecting
any
comments
on
this
Report,
whether
from
Committee
Members,
External
Representatives,
LAUSD
staff
or
the
general
public.
Such
comments
may
be
delivered
to
me
via
email,
at
monica.ratliff@lausd.net,
or
to
my
office
at
333
S.
Beaudry
Ave.,
24th
Floor,
Los
Angeles,
California
90017.
I
will
then
annex
any
comments
so
received
to
this
Report
via
a
supplement,
which
I
will
present
to
you
by
September
10,
2014.
Sincerely,
iii
Table
of
Contents
Title
Page
................................................................................................................................................................
i
Committee
Participants
..................................................................................................................................
ii
Transmittal
Letter
............................................................................................................................................
iii
Table
of
Contents
.............................................................................................................................................
iv
Executive
Statement
.......................................................................................................................................
ix
Chairs
Report
on
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Ad
Hoc
Committee
I.
Background
I.A.
What
is
CCTP?
...............................................................................................................
1
I.B.
Desired
Outcomes
.......................................................................................................
1
I.C.
Brief
History
of
the
CCTP
.........................................................................................
2
II.
Process
II.A.
Committee
Formation
...........................................................................................
11
II.B.
Meetings
and
Testimony
August
28,
2013
...................................................................................................
11
September
25,
2013
...........................................................................................
15
October
22,
2013
.................................................................................................
20
November
19,
2013
............................................................................................
28
January
7,
2014
....................................................................................................
35
February
6,
2014
.................................................................................................
41
March
5,
2014
.......................................................................................................
47
April
24,
2014
.......................................................................................................
52
May
28,
2014
.........................................................................................................
56
II.C.
Pearson
Curriculum
Demonstration
...............................................................
60
II.D.
Preparation
of
Report
...........................................................................................
60
III.
Findings
and
Recommendations
III.A.
Virtual
Learning
Complex
and
the
CCTP
Overview
.................................................................................................................
63
Network
Reliability
and
Technology
Supports
......................................
63
One-to-One
Technology
....................................................................................
64
Wi-Fi
Access...........................................................................................................
65
III.B.
Timelines
...................................................................................................................
65
III.C.
Pricing
and
Price-Messaging
.............................................................................
67
III.D.
Bond
Funding
and
CCTP
Sustainability
.......................................................
69
III.E.
Device
and
Curriculum
Selection
Choice
of
One-Device-Fits-All
........................................................................
71
Request
for
Proposal
(RFP)
Requirements
..........................................
73
Choice
of
Scoring
Rubric
..................................................................................
75
Bundling
Curriculum
and
Device
.................................................................
76
Conflicts
of
Interest
............................................................................................
77
Scoring
Unfinished
Content
............................................................................
80
III.F.
Curriculum
Requirements
Digital
and
Dynamic
Curriculum
..................................................................
81
No
Repurposed
or
Realigned
Content
........................................................
82
Differentiation
of
Instruction
.........................................................................
83
iv
APPENDICES
A1.
CCTP
website
pages
http://achieve.lausd.net/cctp
A2.
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Plan,
dated
September
19,
2012
http://www.laschools.org/bond/meeting-
archives/download/agendas/2012/BOC_Meeting_Packet.091912.pdf
A3.
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Plan,
dated
October
9,
2012
http://laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/SUPT%20UPDATE%20-
%20Common%20Core%20Tech%20Proj%20Plan.pdf
A4.
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Plan,
dated
November
13,
2012
http://laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/SUPT%20RPT%20-
%20Common%20Core%20Technology.pdf
A5.
Minutes
of
School
Construction
Bond
Citizens
Oversight
Committee
meeting
held
November
14,
2012
http://www.laschools.org/bond/meeting-
archives/download/meetings/minutes/2012/November_Minutes.pdf
A6.
A7.
A8.
A9.
A10.
A11.
A12.
A13.
A14.
A15.
A16.
A17.
A18.
A19.
A20.
A21.
A22.
A23.
A24.
A25.
A26.
A27.
A28.
A29.
A30.
A31.
A32.
A33.
A34.
A35.
A36.
A37.
A38.
A39.
A40.
A41.
A42.
A43.
A44.
A45.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/08/whats-the-
best-device-for-interactive-learning/375567/
The
Common
Core
State
Standards:
Caution
and
Opportunity
for
Early
Childhood
Education,
National
Association
for
the
Education
of
Young
Children
(NAEYC),
2012
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/11_CommonCore1_2A_rv2.pdf
Form
990
filed
by
American
Institutes
for
Research
in
the
Behavioral
Sciences
Proposal
score
sheets
with
scorer
comments
for
RFP
#1118
Notice
to
Stamford
Public
Schools
regarding
Pearsons
July
16-20,
2012
summer
institute,
Bringing
Common
Core
to
the
Classroom
Sample
Procurement
forms
relating
to
conflicts:
(1)
Contract
Integrity
Certification
for
RFP
No.
1125;
and
(2)
Certificate
for
LAUSD
Personnel
Participating
in
Source
Selection
Concerning
Nondisclosure,
Conflicts
of
Interest,
and
Rules
of
Conduct
Excerpt
from
Unofficial
Transcript
of
April
24,
2014
Committee
meeting
Form
of
Confidentiality
and
Nondisclosure
Certification
Confidentiality
and
Nondisclosure
Certification
tendered
to
Boardmember
Galatzan
and
her
staff
viii
Executive
Statement
Over
the
past
year,
I
have
had
the
responsibility
of
chairing
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Ad
Hoc
Committee
(the
Committee)
as
we
strived
to
learn
more
about
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project
(the
CCTP).
As
a
body
that
met
repeatedly
over
ten
months,
perhaps
the
Committees
greatest
contribution
has
been
facilitating
the
flow
of
information
regarding
the
CCTP
to
and
from
the
public,
and
I
am
hopeful
that
this
Report
will
further
that
mission.
The
CCTP
is
an
important
project.
Not
only
in
terms
of
its
estimated
$1
billion
plus
cost
of
initial
implementation,
but
also
in
terms
of
its
potential
impact
on
the
lives
of
LAUSDs
650,000
students,
many
of
whom
do
not
yet
have
equitable
access
to
the
21st
Century
technologies
that
they
will
need
to
master
in
order
to
graduate
college-
and
career-ready.
The
Committee
heard
over
27
hours
of
presentations
from
executive
and
senior
staff
of
LAUSDs
Information
Technology,
Procurement,
Facilities,
Curriculum,
Instruction
&
School
Support,
and
Data
&
Accountability
divisions,
the
Office
of
the
Superintendent
and
Los
Angeles
School
Police,
as
well
as
leaders
from
many
external
organizations
and
public
speakers.
I
greatly
respect
the
numerous
presenters
who
spent
hours
of
their
time
providing
information
and
answering
questions.
It
has
been
extremely
obvious
throughout
this
process
that
all
who
spoke
at
the
Committee
meetings
have
a
genuine
desire
to
further
LAUSD's
goal
of
helping
all
students
achieve.
The
Committee
existence
allowed
questions
to
be
asked,
concerns
to
be
raised,
information
to
be
presented,
and
suggestions
to
be
made
in
a
public
forum.
This
report
documents
and
synthesizes
those
questions,
concerns,
information,
and
suggestions
raised
during
the
Committee
or
available
to
the
Committee
and
the
public.
Many
of
the
recommendations
that
I
present
originated
with
the
Committees
diligent
External
Representatives,
and
I
am
extremely
grateful
for
their
contributions.
In
addition,
I
am
presenting
other
recommendations
that
make
sense
in
light
of
the
information
available
to
the
Committee
and
the
public.
From
now
through
September
8,
2014
at
8:00
p.m.
Pacific
Daylight
Time,
I
will
be
collecting
written
comments
on
this
Report,
whether
from
Committee
members,
External
Representatives,
LAUSD
staff
or
the
general
public.
I
will
then
annex
such
comments
to
this
Report
as
a
supplement
to
be
made
a
part
of
the
public
record
by
September
10,
2014.
ix
As
the
Board
of
Education
and
the
public
consider
future
CCTP
investments
and
phases,
it
is
extremely
important
that
remaining
questions
be
answered,
concerns
be
resolved,
and
all
suggestions
and
recommendations
be
taken
seriously,
reviewed
and
addressed
in
a
timely
fashion.
Sincerely,
Chairs
Report
on
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Ad
Hoc
Committee
I.
Background
I.A.
What
is
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project?
The
Common
Core
Technology
Project
(CCTP)
is
a
major
capital
investment
in
technology
with
the
aim
of
providing
schools
with
21st
Century
tools
to
enhance
the
instructional
possibilities
for
both
the
students
and
teachers
of
the
Los
Angeles
Unified
School
District
(LAUSD),
in
order
to
increase
college-
and
career-readiness
of
LAUSDs
graduates.
The
CCTP
aims
to
create
new
modes
of
interactive
and
individualized
learning,
as
well
as
to
increase
student
digital
literacy
and
readiness
for
computer
adaptive
assessments.
Key
components
of
the
CCTP
include:
Ensuring
that
students
and
teachers
are
equipped
with
devices
on
a
one-to-
one
basis,
to
enable
immediate
technology
access
for
all;
Another
major
component
of
the
CCTP
involves
the
use
of
digital
interactive
curricula
that
are
aligned
with
the
Common
Core
State
Standards
(CCSS),
which
have
recently
been
mandated
by
the
State
of
California,
along
with
44
other
States.
I.B.
Desired
Outcomes
LAUSD
has
asserted
that
the
need
to
catch
up
to
the
way
its
students
learn
is
long
overdue.
LAUSD
has
been
strategizing
to
improve
the
school
infrastructure
to
accommodate
21st
Century
teaching
and
learning
technology
for
several
years.
Californias
adoption
of
CCSS
has
been
identified
by
LAUSD
as
a
catalyst
for
its
movement
in
this
direction.
By
enabling
and
implementing
one-to-one
devices
in
every
K-12
classroom,
LAUSD
hopes
to
accomplish
the
following
objectives1:
Closing
the
Digital
Divide
by
ensuring
that
all
students
have
access
to
21st
Century
skills
and
technology.
The
stated
promise2
of
the
CCTP
is
that,
when
fully
implemented,
it
would
provide
all
LAUSD
students
with
access
to:
With
the
following
one
line
in
Superintendent
John
Deasys
annual
Back-to-School
Address
to
Administrators,
delivered
August
9,
2012,
LAUSDs
Common
Core
Technology
Project
was
introduced.
I
am
committed
to
working
with
this
amazing
Board
of
Education
for
finding
a
way
to
place
a
tablet
in
the
hands
of
every
student
and
school
staff
member.
.
.
in
the
next
15
months.
more
condensed
2-phase
rollout,
with
demonstration
projects
at
13
identified
Schools
For
the
Future
(SFF)
high
schools
followed
immediately
with
district-wide
implementation.
See
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Plan,
dated
September
19,
2012,
included
as
Appendix
A2
hereto.
being
prepared
and
outfitted
with
the
devices
by
the
start
of
the
2013/14
school
year.
Phase
2:
System-Wide
Demonstration.
The
second
phase
would
include
additional
schools,
plus
putting
in
place
the
staffing
and
administration
necessary
for
the
full
roll-out4.
As
of
February
12,
2013,
Phase
2
was
planned
to
run
from
January
2014
through
July
2014
Phase
3:
District-Wide
Rollout.
Phase
3
was
initially
planned
to
run
from
July
2014
through
December
2014,
with
the
objective
of
completing
all
school
site
infrastructure
upgrades,
staff
trainings
and
distribution
of
devices
to
all
of
LAUSDs
650,000
plus
students
by
December
2014.
On
January
23,
2013,
the
School
Construction
Bond
Citizens
Oversight
Committee
(BOC)
recommended
the
Board
amend
the
Information
Technology
Division
Strategic
Execution
Plans
to
approve
the
project
definition
and
funding
strategy
for
Phase
1
of
the
CCTP,
as
described
in
Board
Report
No.
157-12/13.
The
BOCs
recommendation
was
not
without
dissent,
as
the
measure
was
adopted
by
a
vote
of
9
ayes
to
6
nays.
Much
of
the
controversy
appears
to
have
related
to
whether
it
is
appropriate
for
school
construction
bond
proceeds
to
be
used
to
fund
such
things
as
devices,
e-curricula,
and
implementation-related
professional
development
for
the
CCTP,
as
opposed
to
more
traditional
bond
funded
purchases
like
physical
plant
construction
and
improvement
projects.
While
the
various
arguments
and
counterarguments
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
Report,
we
note
that
this
issue
was
raised
in
a
number
of
fora
including
the
BOC,
but
that
LAUSDs
bond
counsel
ultimately
opined
on
the
proposed
use
of
bond
proceeds
in
connection
with
the
CCTP.5
The
Board
voted,
on
February
12,
2013,
to
approve
the
implementation
of
Phase
1:
Planning
&
Readiness
of
the
CCTP,
and,
as
recommended
by
the
BOC,
to
fund
the
$50
million
project
with
bond
funds
from
Measures
R
and/or
Y.
At
the
same
time,
the
Board
also
authorized
the
Chief
Facilities
Executive
and/or
his
designee
to
commence
procurement
actions
as
necessary
to
implement
Phase
1
of
the
CCTP.
This
would
bring
one-to-one
access
to
devices
to
47
LAUSD
schools,
consisting
of:
29
Office
of
Civil
Rights
Schools;
13
Schools
for
the
Future;
and
five
Proposition
39
charter
schools
co-located
on
five
of
those
sites.
On
March
1,
2013,
LAUSDs
Procurement
Division
issued
Request
for
Proposal
No.
1118
(RFP
#1118),
Computing
Devices
for
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project.
The
Scope
of
procurement
for
RFP
#1118
included:
4
At
the
Boards
January
14,
2014
meeting,
Phase
2
was
expanded
to
include
devices
and
test-carts
5 See Findings and Recommendations Bond Funding and CCTP Sustainability, infra., and the
opinion of Sidley Austin LLP, dated September 7, 2012, included as Appendix A10 hereto.
Personal,
interactive,
portable
computing
devices
for
all
Grade
K-12
students
and
teachers
with
curriculum
and
functional
software
appropriate
to
grade
level.
Proposals
were
to
be
priced
on
a
per
seat
basis
including
all
of
the
required
elements
and
any
additional
options
offered.
The
Digital
Content
and
Curriculum
requirements
of
RFP
#1118
encompassed
content
from
Kindergarten
to
Grade
12
in
English
Language
Arts
and
Kindergarten
to
Grade
8
in
Mathematics,
aligned
to
the
CCSS,
as
determined
based
on
the
Publishers
Criteria6.
The
content
was
to
be
piloted
during
Phase
1
and
Proposers
committed
to
work
with
LAUSD
to
respond
to
review
by
LAUSD
teachers
and,
where
shortcomings
were
to
be
determined,
to
identify
and
provide
alternate
curriculum
that
would
meet
all
key
criteria.
Other
requirements
included:
The
content
must
be
licensed
to
LAUSD
for
five
years
from
the
date
of
delivery
of
a
specific
unit
and
shall
be
included
in
the
per
seat
price;
6 It was acknowledged that the Publishers Criteria for Grade 9-12 Mathematics had not yet been
released.
However,
no
similar
acknowledgement
was
made
that
the
criteria
for
Grade
K-8
Mathematics
was
not
released
either
until
April
2013.
Content
must
be
originally
designed
using
the
CCSS
and
not
retrofitted,
repurposed,
or
re-aligned
as
an
after-thought;
The
digital
content
and
curriculum
requirements
also
provided
that
the
proposers
must
furnish
LAUSD
with
updates,
improvements
and
new
applications
as
they
evolve
throughout
the
five-year
license
term
at
no
additional
cost.
Proposers
were
required
to
offer
a
warranty
against
normal
wear
and
tear
and
ensure
delivery
of
all
services
for
five
years
from
the
date
of
delivery
of
a
specific
unit.
Regardless
of
the
cause
of
any
loss,
proposers
were
required
to
undertake
to
provide
replacement
units
to
the
end
users
site
in
no
more
than
one
day.
The
proposers
were
specifically
required
to
assume
the
risk
of
loss
or
damage
of
the
equipment
provided,
except
that
local
school
units
would
be
responsible
for
any
replacement
or
repair
costs
due
to
the
negligent
or
intentional
act
of
an
employee
or
student.
One
strategy
for
mitigating
the
risk
of
loss
or
damage
that
was
suggested
to
proposers
in
RFP
#1118
was
to
provide
a
percentage
of
overage
or
surplus
stock
of
equipment
to
be
immediately
at
the
ready
should
replacement
be
required.
There
were
a
number
of
bidder
qualifications
included
in
the
RFP
#1118,
including:
In
response
to
RFP
#1118,
various
Proposers
submitted
their
proposals,
and
all
proposals
by
responsible
bidders
would
be
scored.
Responsible
bidders
was
defined
as
Proposers
deemed:
(1)
to
have
adequate
financial
resources
to
perform
a
contract;
(2)
able
to
comply
with
legal
and
regulatory
requirements;
(3)
able
to
deliver
according
to
the
CCTPs
schedule;
(4)
to
have
a
history
of
satisfactory
performance;
(5)
to
have
a
good
reputation
regarding
integrity;
(6)
able
to
obtain
and
provide
the
necessary
hardware,
software,
content,
functionality,
equipment,
training
and
facilities
for
the
CCTP;
and
(7)
otherwise
eligible
and
qualified
to
receive
an
award
if
its
bid
was
chosen.
In
order
to
assess
whether
a
Proposer
was
a
responsible
bidder,
the
Responsible
Bidder
Criteria
(Appendix
J)
attached
to
RFP
#1118
included
a
number
of
questions
designed
to
elicit
Proposer
qualifications.
For
example,
Appendix
J
required
Proposers
to
certify
that
neither
they
nor
any
firm
identified
as
Partners
had
defaulted
on
a
contract
within
the
past
five
years,
experienced
certain
insolvency
events
in
the
past
three
years
or
had
ever
been
prohibited
or
terminated
for
cause/default
from
any
project
for
a
school
district
or
other
public
agency
within
the
United
States.
Proposers
whose
scores
fell
in
the
competitive
range
would
become
acceptable
bidders,
and
LAUSD
could
allow
such
acceptable
bidders
to
revise
their
proposals
and
submit
a
Best
and
Final
Offer
Proposal
(BAFO),
in
which
case
the
score
could
be
adjusted
to
reflect
the
changes
in
the
proposal.
Finally,
LAUSD
would
award
to
one,
two
or
all
three
of
the
three
lowest
bidders,
in
its
sole
discretion.
RFP
#1118
explicitly
stated
that
qualification
as
a
responsible
bidder
could
be
reevaluated
and
a
Proposer
disqualified
even
once
the
procurement
had
moved
on
to
the
Acceptable
Bidder
Proposal
Scoring
Process.
Finally,
RFP
#1118
included
a
scoring
rubric
with
the
various
elements
and
their
respective
weighting.
The
scoring
metrics
were
divided
into
three
primary
categories:
It
was
also
stated
that
LAUSD
reserved
the
right
to
evaluate
various
optional
items
as
a
tie-breaker,
such
as
CCSS
for
pre-K
intervention
in
English
Language
Arts
and
Mathematics,
Computer
adaptive
assessments,
carts,
learning
management
systems
and
disposal/recycling.
In
this
context,
a
tie
was
defined
as
final
scores
within
10
points
of
each
other.
On
March
20,
2013,
RFP
#1118
was
amended,
among
other
things:
(a)
to
increase
the
weight
of
the
specifications
of
work
to
be
performed
from
60
points
to
90
points,
by
increasing
the
number
of
points
for
each
subcategory
by
approximately
50%;
and
(b)
to
eliminate
the
separate
scoring
of
price,
in
recognition
that
price
would
ultimately
determine
the
three
lowest
bidders.
The
March
20,
2013
amendments
also
imposed
a
requirement
that
a
Lead
Proposer
shall
submit
no
more
than
one
proposal.
Procurement
promulgated
a
series
of
Addenda
to
RFP
#1118
in
late
March
and
early
April
2013
clarifying
certain
provisions
and
responding
to
written
questions
from
prospective
Proposers.
Addendum
9,
issued
on
April
4,
2013,
included
further
clarification
of
what
LAUSD
was
seeking
with
respect
to
content,
and
asserted
that
LAUSD
highly
prefers
to
evaluate
these
aspects
on
content
loaded
on
the
demonstration
devices:
7
The
sub-categories
here
were
nearly
identical
to
the
minimum
requirements
for
Project
loaded
software
(4.5);
proposed
content
alignment
with
CCSS
(12);
warranty
and
repair
and
replacement
program
(9);
training
(3);
delivery
schedule
and
support
structure
(6);
plan
for
parent
and
community
involvement
(3);
and
use
of
small
business
enterprises
(3).
Content
must
make
use
of
powerful
technology
tools
to
engage
and
support
students;
The
CCSS
must
have
been
used
as
the
basis
by
which
the
content
was
originally
designed
and
not
retrofitted,
repurposed,
or
re-aligned
as
an
after-
thought;
Phase
1
of
CCTP
was
initiated
with
47
schools
in
August
2013.
Of
the
47
pilot
schools,
13
were
schools
that
had
demonstrated
success
in
early
adoption
of
1:1
technology-assisted
learning,
as
part
of
the
Schools
for
the
Future
program
(SFF).
Another
29
schools
were
selected
because
they
were
identified
by
the
Office
of
Civil
Rights
(OCR)
as
those
having
the
greatest
need
of
access
to
modernized
instructional
content.
The
remaining
five
were
Proposition
39
charter
schools
co-
located
with
other
Phase
1
schools.
In
all,
43
schools
received
devices
for
each
of
their
students,
one
school
chose
a
partial
deployment
plan,
and
three
schools
postponed
their
deployment
to
early
2014.
Also
in
August
2013,
the
CCTP
Ad
Hoc
Committee
was
constituted
and
began
its
work9.
In
September
2013,
within
a
week
of
devices
being
handed
out
to
students
at
Theodore
Roosevelt
High
School,
Westchester
Enriched
Sciences
Magnets
and
the
Fine
Arts
Academy
at
Dr.
Maya
Angelou
Community
High
School
as
part
of
the
Phase
1
rollout,
it
was
widely
reported10
that
hundreds
of
such
devices
were
modified
by
students
to
disable
LAUSDs
Mobile
Device
Management
system,
and
defeat
LAUSDs
filtering
system.
By
the
October
29,
2013
iteration
of
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Plan,
LAUSD
had
trimmed
its
plans
for
Phase
2
of
the
CCTP.
Phase
2
was
revised
to
include:
On
November
12,
2013,
the
Board
passed
the
Student
Success
Through
an
Evaluation-Based
Common
Core
Technology
Project
resolution,
which
was
brought
forward
by
the
Committees
Chair.
Such
resolution:
Determined
that
LAUSD
would
focus
on
Phases
1
and
2
of
the
CCTP
during
the
2013-14
and
2014-15
school
years
in
order
to
resolve
various
issues
that
had
been
brought
to
light;
9
See
10 For example, Pete Demetriou for CBSLA.com, September 25, 2013, and Which Way LA on KCRW,
On
January
14,
2014,
the
Board
approved
Phases
1L
and
Phase
2
and
authorized
an
aggregate
of
approximately
$115
million
to
be
funded
from
school
construction
bond
funds
from
Measures
R,
Y
and
Q,
and
another
estimated
$11.75
million
from
LAUSDs
General
Fund
(plus
additional
amounts
that
may
be
determined
necessary
by
bond
counsel).
On
February
10,
2014,
LAUSDs
Procurement
Division
issued
Request
for
Proposal
No.
14034
(RFP
#14034),
Laptop
Devices
for
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project.
The
Scope
of
procurement
for
RFP
#14034
included:
Laptop
devices
for
Grade
9-12
students
and
teachers
with
curriculum
and
functional
software
appropriate
to
grade
level;
Plan
for
repair
and/or
replacement
of
portable
computing
devices
and
other
equipment;
and
11 When options schools and co-located magnets and charters were added, the total number of high
LAUSD
realized
that
the
technical
specifications
of
RFP
#14034
were
such
that
no
Chromebook
device
on
the
market
could
satisfy
them.
In
the
interest
of
making
available
to
schools
a
greater
variety
of
devices
from
which
to
choose
in
Phase
1L,
on
May
1,
2014,
LAUSDs
Procurement
Division
issued
Request
for
Proposal
No.
14047
(RFP
#14047),
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Chromebook
Option.
The
schedule
for
this
procurement
was
established
to
conform
with
the
ongoing
process
for
RFP
#14034,
with
the
winning
Chromebook(s)
to
simply
be
added
to
the
devices
from
which
the
schools
participating
in
Phase
1L
would
be
able
to
choose
in
June
2014.
For
the
Chromebook
procurement,
LAUSD
used
the
revised
language
regarding
CCSS
alignment,
providing
that
content
must
tightly
adhere
to
the
CCSS
for
Mathematics
and
ELA.
LAUSDs
selection
panels
and
executive
staff
concluded
that
the
proposals
of
Arey
Jones
Educational
Solutions,
Lenovo
(United
States)
Inc.,
and
SHI
International
Corp.
were
responsive
to
RFP
#14034,
and
recommended
that
they
each
be
awarded
contracts
for
laptop
devices
in
support
of
the
CCTP.
Similarly,
LAUSDs
selection
panels
and
executive
staff
concluded
that
the
proposals
of
Arey
Jones
(Samsung
device)
and
Rorke
Global
Solutions,
An
Avnet
Business
(Acer
device
and
Dell
devices)
were
responsive
to
RFP
#14047,
and
recommended
that
they
each
be
awarded
contracts
for
the
Chromebook
option
in
support
of
the
CCTP.
At
its
July
1,
2014,
Regular
Meeting,
the
Board
authorized
all
such
Phase
1L
contracts.
As
a
result,
the
schools
participating
in
Phase
1L
were
able
to
choose
from
among
six
different
devices
with
curriculum
from
three
different
providers.
As
part
of
Phase
2
of
the
CCTP,
LAUSD
participated
in
SBACs
Field
Test
assessments
during
a
testing
window
from
April
1,
2014
to
May
16,
2014.
For
the
Field
Test,
LAUSD
schools
used
a
mixture
of
Phase
2
iPads
and
carts
and
existing
computer
lab
equipment.
10
II.
Process
II.A.
Committee
Formation
At
the
Regular
Board
of
Education
Meeting
held
on
August
20,
2013,
the
Board
President,
Dr.
Richard
Vladovic,
constituted
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project
Ad
Hoc
Committee
(the
Committee),
which
he
asked
Boardmember
Mnica
Ratliff
to
chair.
Ms.
Ratliff
accepted
the
assignment,
immediately
gave
notice
that
the
inaugural
meeting
would
be
held
on
August
28,
2013,
and
asked
that
Mr.
Ronald
Chandler,
Chief
Information
Officer,
Information
Technology
Division,
be
assigned
to
the
Committee.
All
Committee
meetings
were
held
as
public
hearings,
in
compliance
with
applicable
law.
II.B.
Meetings
&
Testimony
August
28,
2013
After
the
Committee
Members
and
external
representatives
to
the
Committee
(the
External
Representatives)
introduced
themselves,
Gerardo
Loera,
Executive
Director
for
Curriculum
and
Instruction,
and
Ronald
Chandler,
Chief
Information
Officer,
delivered
a
report
on
the
history
and
implementation
of
the
CCTP
to
date.
Mr.
Loera
described
the
necessity
for
schools,
which
were
based
on
an
industrial-
age
model,
to
adapt
to
the
information
age.
He
presented
slides
describing
LAUSDs
vision
for
21st
Century
instruction
in
alignment
with
the
CCSS.
Mr.
Loera
cited
key
findings
from
over
30
demonstration
projects,
benchmarking
surveys
and
the
results
of
a
national
survey
of
classroom
technology
initiatives
conducted
by
Project
Revolutionizing
Education
(Project
RED).
Among
other
things,
he
reported
that
this
research
found:
It
was
important
to
empower
students
and
parents
to
feel
a
sense
of
ownership
for
the
devices;
Mr.
Loera
also
discussed
the
proposed
timeline
and
progress
to
date.
Mr.
Loera
noted
the
importance
of
students
having
access
to
technology
to
take
the
SBAC
assessments
as
the
assessments
are
on-line
assessments
and
center
around
CCSS
11
which
have
technological
skills
and
concepts
embedded
in
the
standards.
Mr.
Chandler
reported
on
the
status
of
the
school
infrastructure
upgrade,
and
emphasized
that
CCTP
should
not
be
thought
of
as
a
technology
product,
but
rather
as
instruction
powered
by
technology.
Mr.
Chandler
was
asked
to
describe
how
schools
were
chosen
for
the
various
Phases.
Mr.
Chandler
replied
that
29
were
identified
by
the
Office
of
Civil
Rights
as
having
the
greatest
need
of
access
to
modernized
instructional
content,
13
are
Schools
of
the
future
and
five
were
Proposition
39
charter
schools
co-located
with
schools
in
one
of
the
above
categories.
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
about
a
timeline
for
the
use
of
e-books
and
e-textbooks.
Mr.
Loera
pointed
out
that
the
iPads
being
rolled
out
to
Phase
1
schools
came
preloaded
with
digital
curriculum
for
K
through
8
in
English
and
math.
He
stated
that
in
terms
of
e-books
and
e-Textbooks,
the
textbook
industry
was
determining
how
their
models
will
end
up
working.
He
reported
that
there
was
some
pending
legislation
requiring
textbook
publishers
to
provide
digital
versions
of
their
textbooks
for
compliance
under
Williams/Valenzuela-related
requirements.
Later
in
the
meeting,
the
Committee
returned
to
textbook
issue.
The
Committee
pointed
out
that
if
we
move
forward
with
Phase
2
and
3
and
come
up
with
half
a
billion
to
a
billion
dollars
of
funding
for
district-wide
implementation,
the
question
becomes
do
we
replace
textbooks
and
[d]o
we
commit
general
funds
in
the
future
into
this
program?
It
was
asked
if
there
was
feedback
from
the
rollout
that
the
public,
BOE,
stakeholders
and
practitioners
could
see
in
terms
of
positives
and
negatives
to
date.
Mr.
Loera
responded
that
feedback
had
been
received
regarding
PD
held
over
the
summer
and
the
feedback
was
extraordinarily
high.
It
was
asked
if
there
was
feedback
gathered
from
the
schools
that
were
actually
implementing
the
rollout
that
could
allow
schools
that
have
not
gone
through
the
rollout
could
use
to
learn
best
practices.
Mr.
Loera
stated
that
the
feedback
LAUSD
was
getting
each
step
of
the
way
was
overwhelmingly
positive.
Boardmember
LaMotte
asked
how
Facilities
and
Instruction
were
working
together
to
ensure
success
and
expressed
concern
that
the
project
might
not
work
without
additional
funding.
Mr.
Loera
emphasized
that
there
has
been
an
extraordinary
level
of
coordination
between
Facilities,
ITD,
and
Instruction
involving
a
very
coherent
plan,
weekly
project
updates
and
having
members
from
each
of
the
departments
working
together.
Mr.
Chandler
confirmed
the
cooperation
between
divisions.
Mr.
Chandler
briefly
discussed
LAUSDs
internet
filtering.
He
pointed
out
that
LAUSD
had
filtering
on
campus
to
ensure
that
inappropriate
places
were
blocked
and
LAUSD
was
getting
filtering
for
off-campus.
Mr.
Chandler
pointed
out
that
all
of
these
processes
had
worked
out
for
the
most
part
and
LAUSD
was
going
to
tweak
the
processes.
Mr.
Chandler
discussed
the
timeline
for
Phase
1
and
the
opportunity
to
learn
12
13
devices
if
lost
or
stolen,
as
well
as
create
a
publicity
campaign
to
educate
the
public
that
the
iPads
were
useless
if
stolen.
It
was
asked
that
the
Committee
see
the
actual
safety
and
security
protocols
and
any
forms
students
or
their
guardians
were
being
asked
to
sign.
Mr.
Chandler
reported
that
LAUSD
was
upgrading
infrastructure
in
order
to
accommodate
every
student
being
online
at
the
same
time.
However,
the
decision
whether
to
have
all
students
take
the
SBAC
assessments
simultaneously
would
await
further
testing
and
analysis.
Mr.
Chandler
also
stated
that
by
late
August
2014
all
schools
would
be
upgraded.
He
pointed
out
that
this
is
one
of
the
largest
technology
projects
in
the
country
at
the
time.
Mr.
Chandler
discussed
some
FAQs
around
keyboards.
He
stated
that
LAUSD
had
decided
not
to
provision
keyboards
but
had
worked
with
procurement
to
make
sure
that
there
was
a
vehicle
to
purchase
keyboards
and
was
planning
on
purchasing
keyboards
later
on.
He
reported
that
Smarter
Balanced
had
stated
that
mechanical
keyboards
were
recommended
but
not
required
if
there
was
an
alternative
way
to
input
into
the
test.
Mr.
Chandler
advised
that
tablets
would
start
going
home
with
students
on
a
school-
by-school
basis,
after
the
appropriate
preparations
had
been
completed.
LAUSD
was
developing
informational
videos
on
device
safety,
however
no
students
had
seen
the
videos
yet.
The
Committee
saw
a
brief
portion
of
a
video
developed
by
LAUSD,
and
the
Chair
requested
that
more
of
the
video
be
shown
in
the
future.
It
was
recommended
that
schools
be
able
to
participate
in
some
sort
of
PSA
creation
campaign
as
some
students
have
created
exceptional
videos.
The
Committee
then
raised
a
number
of
issues
it
wanted
to
discuss
at
future
meetings,
including:
Security plans for classrooms, if a school decided not to send devices home;
LAUSDs
plan
for
funding
CCTP
two
or
three
years
down
the
road,
when
the
iPads
may
be
obsolete,
lost
and/or
broken.
The
Committee
heard
from
a
couple
speakers
including
Ms.
Araceli
Sandoval
Gonzalez,
the
Director
of
School
and
Community
Engagement
for
Early
Edge
California.
Ms.
Gonzalez
wanted
to
know
if
students
in
transitional
kindergarten
14
The
meeting
began
with
a
repetition
of
the
purpose
of
the
Committee
in
providing
a
forum
for
people
to
ask
questions
and,
ultimately,
to
have
them
answered
by
various
LAUSD
representatives.
The
Committee
heard
telephonic
testimony
from
Dr.
Stanley
Rabinowitz,
Smarter
Balanced
Project
Management
Partner
at
WestEd
regarding
SBAC.
In
introducing
Dr.
Rabinowitz,
Mr.
Loera
described
Smarter
Balanced
as
one
of
two
nationwide
consortia
developing
next
generation
assessments
which:
Dr.
Rabinowitz
explained
that
the
impetus
for
the
new
assessment
was
threefold:
(1)
to
satisfy
the
need
for
new
assessments
based
on
the
CCSS;
(2)
to
provided
better
support
throughout
the
school
year
to
schools
by
providing
additional
formative
and
interim
assessments;
and
(3)
because
the
federal
grant
that
was
part
of
the
race-to-the
top
program
provided
significant
federal
resources
that
states
could
apply
for
and
use
as
part
of
[the]
consortium
for
development
of
this
next
generation
assessment
system
maintaining
control
at
the
state
level
with
this
federal
seed
money.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
described
how
the
SBAC
assessment
questions
included
computer
enhanced
and
other
purported
improvements
on
traditional
test
question
formats.
A
number
of
questions
were
asked
about
the
computer
adaptive
aspect
of
the
assessments.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
explained
that,
although
different
students
received
different
questions,
the
tests
were
fair.
Moreover,
the
assessments
were
more
efficient
and
less
time-consuming,
since
they
measured
the
full
depth
and
breadth
of
the
Common
Core.
Mr.
Loera
explained
that
students
would
be
interacting
with
the
technology
via
a
Technology
Enhanced
Platform
which
would
require
students
to
answer
questions
by
highlighting,
dragging,
and
dropping
text
and
answers,
among
other
things.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
mentioned
that
these
computer
enhanced
items
might
involve
students
drawing
an
angle
versus
simply
recognizing
an
angle.
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
to
bring
to
the
next
meeting
some
examples
of
non-multiple
choice
performance
assessment
questions
from
various
grade
levels
of
Math
and
ELA.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
clarified
that
the
concept
of
grade-level
did
not
strictly
apply
to
test
15
questions,
but
the
Committee
could
see
examples
of
elementary,
middle
and
high
school
questions.
It
was
asked
when
states
would
be
expected
to
move
to
a
fully
computerized
test
versus
a
paper-and-pencil
test.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
explained
that
paper
and
pencil
versions
would
be
available
for
three
years
(through
the
2016-17
school
year),
but
that
they
were
not
as
precise
and
would
not
return
results
as
promptly
as
a
fully
computerized
administration.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
asserted
that
the
CCSS
created
a
need
for
a
different
kind
of
assessment,
and
that
the
interim
paper
and
pencil
versions
would
only
return
scores
of
Proficient
or
Not
Proficient.
Mr.
Loera
mentioned
that
the
SBAC
involves
a
number
of
different
States
and
California
will
set
additional
guidelines
and
parameters
for
school
districts
to
follow.
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
about
assessments
for
the
new
CCSS
science
standards
and
social
studies
standards.
He
stated
that
the
assessments
being
developed
were
specifically
for
English
Language
Arts
and
Mathematics
and
mentioned
that
LAUSD
was
engaged
in
having
people
from
the
other
disciplines
engaged
in
creating
assessments
for
use
as
a
tool
and
resource
for
teachers.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
explained
that
it
would
be
up
to
states
either
individually
or
as
parts
of
consortia
or
for
the
testing
industry
to
develop
Next
Generation
Science
Assessments.
It
was
asked
why
Grades
K-2
were
not
included
in
the
SBAC
assessments,
and
Dr.
Rabinowitz
explained
that
they
had
not
yet
been
awarded
any
federal
funding
to
develop
assessments
for
those
grades.
However,
upon
questioning,
Dr.
Rabinowitz
added
that
their
digital
library
would
include
supports
for
kindergarten
and
the
early
grades
to
help
teachers.
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
what
LAUSDs
plans
were
for
summative
assessments
of
Grades
9
and
10,
for
which
SBAC
also
did
not
have
summative
assessments.
Mr.
Loera
stated
that
LAUSD
would
use
SBACs
interim
assessments
in
Grades
9
and
10.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
explained
that
Smarter
Balanced
was
indifferent
as
to
any
interim
assessments
schools
may
use.
SBACs
summative
assessments
would
be
given
in
a
12
week
window
at
the
end
of
the
school
year,
but
individual
States
could
choose
to
shorten
this
period.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
was
asked
about
feedback
from
the
50
LAUSD
schools
that
had
taken
SBACs
pilot
test
in
the
2012-13
school
year.
Mr.
Loera
stated
that
LAUSD
would
not
receive
any
assessment
results
from
either
the
pilot
test
or
the
2014
Field
Test.
He
asserted
that
there
was,
nonetheless,
a
benefit
to
LAUSD
students,
teachers
and
administrators
participating
in
the
pilot
and
Field
Test
phases
in
that
they
would
get
to
practice
with
the
new
assessments
before
they
really
counted.
It
was
asked
how
districts
that
did
not
have
one-to-one
devices
planned
to
take
the
SBAC
assessments.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
explained
that
a
school
would
not
need
one-to-
one
computers
for
these
assessments,
rather
computers
could
be
shared
(consecutively,
not
simultaneously)
in
a
computer
lab
or
even
a
regular
classroom.
Moreover,
Dr.
Rabinowitz
explained
that
districts
should
not
necessarily
limit
their
thinking
about
computers
to
laptops,
since
SBAC
was
working
out
deals
with
Apple
and
other
tablet
makers
to
administer
the
tests
on
tablets.
More
information
was
requested
for
the
next
meeting
regarding
sharing
of
devices
during
assessments.
16
Questions
were
asked
about
the
participation
of
other
districts
in
the
pilot
tests.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
explained
that,
of
the
600,000
students
who
participated,
LAUSDs
50
schools
were
the
largest
group
from
any
one
district.
There
were
no
results
from
the
pilot
at
the
school
or
district
levels.
Nor
would
there
be
such
data
from
the
2014
Field
Test,
although
States
would
be
provided
a
data
file
of
all
their
districts
so
they
could
do
some
analyses
if
they
chose.
Mr.
Rabinowitz
stated
that
some
surveying
was
done
in
connection
with
how
the
technology
and
items
on
the
test
performed
not
how
the
students
performed
on
the
test.
Next,
Mr.
Chandler
gave
the
Committee
an
update
on
the
implementation
of
Phase
1
to
date,
tablet
durability
and
their
estimated
three-year
useful
life.
Mr.
Loera
reported
potential
cost
savings
from
textbooks
and
paperwork
reduction,
citing
a
Project
RED
finding
that
suggested
properly
implemented
technology
could
save
money
and
showing
a
number
of
slides
describing
LAUSDs
integrated
digital
library
&
textbook
support
services
(iLTSS),
free
e-textbooks
and
e-encyclopedia.
There
were
some
noteworthy
points
in
the
September
23,
2013
FAQ
from
LAUSDs
Joint
CCTP
Communications
Strategy
that
were
presented
to
the
meeting,
including:
Why do the devices cost more than the prices I see in the stores?; and
In
response
to
the
question
about
devices
apparently
being
cheaper
at
retail,
the
FAQ
explained
that
the
per-unit
cost
included
digital
curriculum,
security
features,
protective
covers
and
PD,
but
did
not
provide
any
comparable
pricing
for
these
added
features
(nor
did
the
FAQ
mention
the
extended
warranty
also
included
in
the
per-unit
price).
As
for
the
long-term
funding
plans,
the
FAQ
stated
that
the
bond
funds
were
used
for
the
initial
transformation,
but
that
LAUSD
would
sustain
the
use
in
future
years
the
same
way
it
was
currently
paying
for
textbooks.
However,
LAUSD
had
not
historically
been
replacing
$600-700
million
plus
of
textbooks
every
three
years.
The
Committee
raised
the
recently
publicized
case
of
iPads
going
home
with
the
students
and
hundreds
of
students
hacking
their
iPads
to
disable
LAUSDs
Mobile
Device
Management
system
and
defeat
LAUSDs
filtering
system.
The
Chair
asked
who
had
made
the
decision
to
send
the
iPads
home
in
light
of
her
understanding
and
the
understanding
of
the
BOC
that
devices
were
going
to
go
home
eventually
but
were
not
going
to
go
home
yet.
Mr.
Chandler
replied
that
he
would
need
to
come
back
to
the
Committee
on
the
sequence
of
decisions
but
he
believed
the
plan
had
been
to
make
it
a
local
decision
determined
by
the
Principal.
The
Committee
expressed
concern
regarding
liability
if
parents
complained
about
students
accessing
something
that
was
inappropriate
and
asserting
that
LAUSD
was
responsible
for
giving
the
device
to
the
student.
Mr.
Chandler
reported
that
LAUSD
could
address
the
defeat
of
LAUSDs
filtering
system
through
security
and,
more
17
Devices
how
much
PD
was
needed
and
how
comfortable
were
teachers
and
principals
in
using
the
devices
in
Phase
1?;
and
18
Dr.
Lim
mentioned
that
her
division
had
come
up
with
an
exhaustive
list
of
questions
that
they
would
forward
to
the
Committee.
She
also
stated
that
LAUSD
would
probably
embed
some
questions
about
the
project
in
the
School
Experience
Survey,
which
would
be
done
in
April
2014.
She
pointed
out
that
LAUSD
could
compare
the
survey
results
for
schools
that
have
the
devices
versus
schools
without
devices
and
hopefully
see
that
students
will
be
more
motivated
or
report
higher
engagement.
In
addition,
LAUSD
would
be
collecting
student
achievement
outcomes
and
would
be
looking
at
attendance
and
suspensions.
Dr.
Lim
reported
that
the
big
summative
question
would
be
what
impact
did
CCTP
have
on
student
learning
and
achievement
(as
well
as
conduct
and
behavior).
It
was
asked
what
feedback
Dr.
Lim
realistically
expected
to
gain
before
the
Bond
Oversight
Committee
was
to
meet
in
October
2013
to
consider
Phase
2,
since
iPads
still
had
not
been
deployed
to
about
20
Phase
1
schools
and
student
achievement
data
certainly
would
not
be
available
yet.
The
Chair
asked
Mr.
Chandler
whether
the
Committee
(and
the
Curriculum,
Instruction
and
Assessments
Committee,
as
well)
could
be
able
to
review
the
actual
Pearson
curriculum
on
any
iPads
that
were
not
needed
for
the
students.
Mr.
Chandler
then
reported
on
plans
to
change
the
culture
through
public
fora
on
KLCS
and
public
service
announcements
around
safety
and
security,
as
well
as
publishing
FAQs,
all
in
multiple
languages.
Mr.
Chandler
mentioned
that
there
was
a
Safety
and
Security
Subcommittee.
He
added
the
there
was
a
desire
to
create
a
high-risk/low
reward
environment
in
which
someone
who
should
not
have
a
LAUSD
iPad
would
feel
it
was
very
risky
to
have
it
in
their
possession
and
that
the
value
of
such
iPad
in
their
possession
was
much
lower
than
the
risk.
It
was
asked
whether
schools
all
had
safe
places
to
store
devices
and
requested
that
Lieutenant
Jose
Santome
present
to
the
Committee
at
a
later
date.
Mr.
Chandler
described
plans
to
instruct
students
in
what
was
required
of
them
with
respect
to
devices.
It
was
asked
what
would
the
consequences
be
on
any
progressive
discipline
matrix
noting
that,
if
the
iPad
were
to
become
equivalent
to
a
textbook
at
some
point,
then
LAUSD
could
not
really
threaten
to
take
it
away.
The
Chair
stated
that
the
Committee
would
like
to
take
a
look
at
the
Progressive
Discipline
Plan
that
was
being
devised.
Mr.
Chandler
was
asked
about
LAUSDs
proposed
Parent
Acknowledgement
Form
and
liability
for
damages
to
devices,
expressing
concern
that
different
versions
of
the
form
were
being
distributed
at
different
schools
sites
and
that
the
form
may
contrary
to
LAUSDs
stated
goal
create
legal
liability,
whether
or
not
LAUSD
would
choose
to
enforce
it.
The
Committee
emphasized
that
parent
meetings
were
really
crucial
to
provide
explanations
and
trainings
to
parents.
The
Committee
pointed
out
that
the
Spanish
version
of
the
form
needed
a
number
of
corrections
and
a
concern
was
brought
up
that
LAUSD
was
relying
too
heavily
on
Google
translation
and
outside
entities
versus
LAUSDs
translation
department.
Boardmember
19
The
Chair
welcomed
the
audience
and
thanked
the
LAUSD
staff
who
had
worked
so
hard
putting
together
the
presentations.
She
mentioned
to
the
audience
that
there
were
index
cards
available
to
allow
for
questions
during
the
meeting.
Mr.
Hugh
Tucker,
Deputy
Director,
Facilities
Contracts,
reviewed
the
process
to
select
Apple
products
for
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project.
He
said
the
process
had
three
steps.
The
first
was
the
planning
step
using
the
Public
Contracting
Code
that
identifies
the
best
value.
The
second
step
was
the
Request
for
Proposals
(RFP)
process.
The
minimum
qualifications
and
scoring
criteria
were
identified
in
the
RFP.
The
third
step
was
an
evaluation
by
a
panel
of
the
proposals
received
in
response
to
the
RFP.
Mr.
Tucker
explained
that
LAUSD
needed
criteria
to
put
together
for
the
selection.
LAUSD
looked
at
an
RFP
created
by
the
state
of
Maine.
Mr.
Tucker
stated
that
the
Maine
RFP
was
not
identical
to
LAUSDs
RFP
because
it
involved
five
other
states
and
some
of
the
states
were
asking
for
laptops
and
some
were
asking
to
build
infrastructure.
Procurement
also
incorporated
general
conditions
that
LAUSD
had
used
in
the
past
for
computer-type
equipment
procurements.
Mr.
Tucker
stated
that,
as
LAUSD
was
creating
scoring
criteria,
LAUSD
needed
experts
in
the
field
from
12 For example, how parents who may not be technologically savvy can support their childrens
learning
with
the
devices
and
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
parents
overseeing
their
childrens
appropriate
use
of
the
devices.
20
13 However, as evidenced by the summary score sheet presented to the Committee at its November
19,
2013
meeting
(and
included
in
Appendix
A17
hereto),
the
highest
scoring
initial
proposal
(Arey
Jones
B,
featuring
a
Dell
Latitude
10
tablet
and
Pearson
curriculum)
never
had
its
BAFO
scored.
21
22
iPad
3.14
He
added
that
LAUSD
could
negotiate
for
newer
devices,
but
the
price
LAUSD
was
offered
was
based
on
this
version.
In
response
to
the
Committees
questions
regarding
the
selection
process,
Mr.
Tucker
stated
that
Dr.
Aquino
had
no
influence
in
choosing
Pearson.
He
said
that
the
selection
panels
scored
Apple
the
highest,
the
Executive
Committee
just
approved
to
move
from
one
step
to
the
next
and
never
had
anything
rescored
or
changed.
Mr.
Tucker
also
stated
that
he
had
no
knowledge
of
any
LAUSD
decision-
maker
having
an
interest
in
Pearson,
and
that
he
would
not
say
anybody
influenced
the
selection
process.
A
question
from
the
audience
specifically
asked
whether
or
not
Dr.
Deasys
appearance
in
an
Apple
commercial
before
the
provider
was
chosen
biased
the
Apple
choice.
Mr.
Tucker
said
no.
Mr.
Hovatter
added
that
he
was
the
one
that
personally
briefed
Dr.
Deasy
once
the
process
was
done.
Mr.
Hovatter
stated
that
Dr.
Deasy
had
no
idea
which
vendor
was
selected
until
after
it
was
submitted
to
the
Board
and
Mr.
Hovatter
had
accepted
the
recommendation.
Mr.
Hovatter
stated
that
Dr.
Deasy
did
not
even
know
who
had
proposed.
The
Committee
requested
the
scoring
criteria
and
results
from
each
of
the
proposals,
since
they
would
be
available
through
a
Public
Records
Act
Request.
Mr.
Hovatter
was
asked
why
LAUSD
was
paying
for
co-located
Charters
to
receive
iPads
under
Proposition
39,
and
he
replied
that
it
was
because
they
were
considered
facilities,
just
like
a
leaky
roof.
It
was
asked
why
the
buffer
pool
was
so
small,
and
Mr.
Chandler
responded
that
studies
showed
breakage
rates
of
only
1-3%.
Mr.
Chandler
committed
to
respond
to
the
Committee
at
a
later
date
regarding
actual
repair
costs,
status
of
curriculum
already
loaded
onto
LAUSD
devices
after
the
three-year
contract
expires
and
device
battery
life.
Mr.
Loera
began
his
presentation
showing
that
the
Phase
1
rollout
of
the
project
would
be
completed
shortly.
Forty
schools
had
received
23,347
iPads
with
the
curriculum
that
was
then
ready.
The
last
five
schools
would
soon
receive
their
devices.
He
said
that
the
iPads
could
access
LAUSDs
library
of
reference
materials
from
home.
He
reported
that
Pearson
had
only
provided
selected
drop-in
lessons,
one
or
two
units
per
grade
(and
only
Grades
K-8)
in
ELA
and
math,
but
the
full
second
semester
curriculum
would
be
available
from
Pearson
in
January
2014.
It
was
asked
whether
the
procurement
process
included
requirements
as
far
as
what
would
be
ready
when,
and
whether
proposers
promised
how
much
to
deliver
when.
Mr.
Chandler
replied
that
Procurement
would
have
to
answer,
but
he
believed
all
providers
were
going
to
have
to
do
some
sort
of
build-in.
14 Mr. Chandler corrected this later in the meeting LAUSD procured the iPad 4 with Retina display
and
Mr.
Tucker
remarked
that
one
or
two
years
into
any
contract
there
would
be
a
better
version
that
LAUSD
might
want
but
would
have
to
pay
for.
23
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
whether
students
could
access
curriculum
above
their
grade
level.
Mr.
Loera
stated
that
it
was
possible
but
it
would
depend
on
what
curriculum
was
loaded
on
the
device.
He
reiterated
that
storage
limitations
would
prevent
all
curriculum
for
every
grade
level
from
being
loaded
on
the
devices.
Later,
it
was
asked
that
LAUSD
consider
allowing
students
to
have
access
to
their
grade
levels
curriculum
and
the
curriculum
one
grade-level
above
and
below.
Mr.
Loera
responded
that
those
kinds
of
things
would
need
to
be
determined
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
based
on
the
limitations
of
the
device
and
the
student
needs.
Upon
further
questioning
of
how
case-by-case
augmentations
would
be
paid
for,
Mr.
Loera
mentioned
that
additional
open
source
content
was
available.
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
how
parents
of
an
English
Learner
would
know
which
apps
would
be
suited
for
their
childs
needs.
Mr.
Loera
suggested
that
Pearson
does
provide
some
supports
for
English
Learners
but
LAUSD
would
continue
to
expand
on
that,
and
Pearson
was
also
continuing
to
build
supports
into
their
subsequent
curriculum.
Mr.
Loera
explained
that,
so
far,
LAUSD
was
just
receiving
the
default
CCSS
curriculum
and,
in
fact,
there
were
no
fully
formed
units
for
Phase
1,
just
a
limited
number
of
drop-in
grade
K-8
lessons.
For
example,
a
high
school
math
teacher
who
stated
that
her
device
lacked
content
would
be
correct,
as
it
was
not
part
of
the
Phase
1
plan.
Later,
when
questioning
continued
on
the
expected
timing
for
the
Pearson
content
to
be
complete,
Mr.
Loera
deferred
to
Procurement.
Questions
were
asked
about
LAUSDs
plan
to
load
textbooks
onto
the
device.
Mr.
Loera
stated
that,
when
the
RFP
was
distributed,
LAUSD
was
not
interested
in
simply
replacing
the
traditional
hard
paper
textbook
with
a
.pdf.
He
explained
that
the
.pdf
is
a
static
page
that
does
not
provide
additional
benefits
to
the
student.
LAUSD
wanted
the
technology
to
be
interactive.
The
Committee
followed
up
by
asking
if
LAUSD
had
researched
textbook
companies
to
see
if
there
are
interactive
textbooks
that
would
be
available
to
LAUSD.
Mr.
Loera
answered
that
the
process
involved
putting
out
the
RFP
and
proposers
submitted
their
proposals
based
on
the
RFP.
He
mentioned
that
LAUSD
was
continuing
to
look
at
what
other
possibilities
and
opportunities
exist
in
the
long
term
in
terms
of
digital
books.
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
what
high
school
students
would
be
using
open
source
content
or
textbooks
in
light
of
the
lack
of
Pearson
high
school
curriculum.
Mr.
Loera
explained
that
LAUSD
has
been
engaged
for
several
years
in
the
transition
to
the
Common
Core:
K,
1st,
6th,
and
9th
grades
began
transitioning
in
2012-2013;
and
2nd,
3rd,
4th,
5th,
7th,
8th,
10th,
and
11th
grades
were
transitioning
in
2013-2014.
Mr.
Loera
stated
that,
at
the
secondary
level,
LAUSD
staff
was
participating
in
realigning
and
redoing
what
needed
to
be
done
instructionally
to
start
teaching
and
learning
with
the
CCSS.
The
Committee
pointed
out
that
LAUSD
had
a
variety
of
magnet
programs
that
would
benefit
from
specialized
curriculum
and
asked
if
devices
would
be
restricted
to
Pearson
curriculum.
Mr.
Loera
responded
that
the
Pearson
curriculum
is
the
24
default,
but
LAUSD
would
need
to
come
up
with
additional
strategies
to
augment
it
based
on
student
need.
The
Committee
inquired
about
Wi-Fi
availability
at
students
homes
and
whether
LAUSD
was
doing
anything
to
support
increased
Wi-Fi
availability.
Mr.
Loera
confirmed
that
LAUSD
was
not
providing
internet
service
at
home,
but
asserted
that
the
purchased
software
did
not
depend
on
it,
since
materials
could
be
downloaded
at
school
and
then
worked
on
off-line
at
home.
Mr.
Chandler
added
that
the
City
was
discussing
citywide
wireless,
and
LAUSD
was
part
of
that
effort.
The
Committee
pointed
out
that
LAUSD
would
be
well
served
to
gather
information
about
the
status
of
Wi-Fi
in
areas
served
by
LAUSD
outside
of
the
City
of
Los
Angeles,
as
well.
The
Chair
announced
that
the
Committee
would
take
up
wireless
plans
for
the
region
at
a
future
meeting.
It
was
asked
whether
schools
would
be
able
to
choose
their
own
apps
or
opt
out
of
the
iPads.
Mr.
Loera
replied
that
schools
could
augment
the
technology
with
additional
apps,
provided
that
they
were
properly
vetted,
but
schools
would
not
be
able
to
opt
out
of
the
iPads
with
Pearson.
In
response
to
Committee
questions,
Mr.
Loera
explained
that
parents
may
opt
out
of
their
student
bringing
the
iPad
home,
but
may
not
opt
out
of
their
student
using
the
iPad
at
school.
It
was
asked
how
cumbersome
the
app-approval
process
would
be
for
teachers,
and
Mr.
Loera
committed
to
research
and
advise.
The
Chair
expressed
concern
that
the
approval
processes
around
the
technology
could
actually
delay
implementation
of
useful
materials
in
schools,
since
as
it
stood
then,
teachers
could
simply
buy
educational
materials
and
hand
them
out.
The
Chair
requested
that
Mr.
Loera
come
to
the
next
meeting
prepared
to
answer
how
much
curriculum
Pearson
had
delivered
and
when
it
would
deliver
the
rest,
with
references
to
any
controlling
language
in
the
contract.
Mr.
Loera
also
said
that
textbooks
remained
the
instructional
material
that
the
State
recognized.
He
said
the
Pearson
curriculum
did
not
replace
textbooks
yet,
since
it
had
not
been
adopted
by
the
State,
and
therefore
LAUSD
would
need
to
continue
to
purchase
textbooks.
The
Chair
announced
that
the
Committee
would
schedule
a
discussion
about
textbook
replacement
for
a
future
meeting.
Mr.
Loera
said
he
would
have
to
reply
later
as
to
whether
Pearson
would
slow
down
their
curriculum
development
if
LAUSD
were
to
delay
the
program.
He
said
he
would
bring
information
regarding
the
Pearson
curriculum
development
forward
at
a
later
time.
He
also
said
he
would
later
provide
a
list
of
the
approved
applications
that
were
already
available
on
the
iPads.
Ms.
Bernadette
Lucas,
CCTP
Project
Director,
reported
to
the
Committee
that
some
schools
had
asked
for
additional
applications
and
they
had
already
been
provided.
Mr.
Loera
said
that
additional
tools
for
teaching
the
English
Language
Learner
(ELL)
would
be
built
into
the
curriculum
for
Phase
2
and
Phase
3.
He
said
that
the
funding
for
additional
25
applications
would
have
to
be
determined
and
that
he
would
report
on
this
in
the
future.
Mr.
Loera
continued
his
presentation
by
discussing
the
PD
that
occurred
over
the
summer.
He
reviewed
the
amount
of
training
that
each
teacher
received.
Mr.
Loera
explained
that
Apple
and
Pearson
were
doing
the
initial
three
days
of
training,
but
that
LAUSD
was
responsible
for
further
training.
In
response
to
the
Committees
question,
Mr.
Loera
affirmed
that
teachers
had
been
evaluating
the
quality
of
the
PD
being
provided
to
them.
The
Chair
announced
that
her
office
was
working
with
the
United
Teachers
of
Los
Angeles
(UTLA)
and
the
Associated
Administrators
of
Los
Angeles
(AALA)
to
survey
teachers
and
administrators
who
were
part
of
Phase
1,
and
asked
for
LAUSD
to
also
present
its
survey
results
to
the
Committee.
Mr.
Chandler
displayed
an
illustration
of
the
governance
model
of
the
project
that
indicated
key
responsibilities
but
omitted
names.
It
was
explained
that
Ms.
Lucas
is
the
project
director
and
there
is
a
project
steering
committee
that
oversees
the
day-to-day
of
the
project.
Mr.
Chandler
reported
that
devices
were
not
going
home
at
the
moment.
It
was
asked
how
the
decision
was
made
for
them
to
go
home
before,
and
he
stated
that
the
decision
was
approved
by
the
Executive
Sponsors
after
consultation
with
legal.
Mr.
Chandler
said
he
would
provide
the
names
of
the
Executive
Sponsors
in
the
future.15
Next,
Lieutenant
Santome
of
the
Los
Angeles
School
Police
(LASPD)
delivered
a
presentation
to
the
Committee
on
LAUSDs
4-point
safety
strategy
plan,
comprised
of:
Community Outreach;
Two
questions
submitted
by
the
public
asked
how
students
in
possession
of
iPads
would
be
protected.
Lt.
Santome
said
one
of
the
main
strategies
to
protect
students
was
to
make
the
device
worthless
to
others.
He
also
expressed
his
hopes
to
have
high
profile
prosecutions
of
those
who
obtain
the
devices
illegally.
The
goal
was
for
the
devices
to
have
low
value
and
high
risk.
Lt.
Santome
reported
that
of
the
24,000
iPads
deployed
to
date,
only
six
had
been
stolen
(of
which,
one
was
recovered),
and
none
had
been
lost.
It
was
asked
whether
LASPD
was
able
to
track
the
devices,
and
Lt.
Santome
replied
yes,
but
that
there
were
certain
operational
strategies
and
15 Mr. Tucker had named the Executive Sponsors as Mr. Chandler, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Aquino at the
26
tactical
capabilities
that
he
could
not
discuss
in
that
forum.
The
Committee
then
asked
for
confirmation
that
LASPD
was
tracking
the
missing
ones,
to
which
Lt.
Santome
replied
that
they
were
not,
because
the
device
must
be
on,
with
battery
charged
and
receiving
Wi-Fi.
Lt.
Santome
also
described
LASPD
efforts
to
coordinate
with
other
safety
agencies
including
involvement
in
the
Law
Enforcement
Working
Group.
He
reported
that
future
cooperation
would
include
scripts
to
allow
representatives
from
partner
agencies
to
go
to
a
school
and
do
a
parent
presentation.
Lt.
Santome
mentioned
that,
at
one
rollout,
the
local
LAPD
division
offered
to
assist
and
sent
12
police
officers
to
visit
classrooms
and
do
safety
presentations.
Mr.
Chandler
said
he
would
bring
information
regarding
bullying
and
the
Acceptable
Use
Policy
in
the
future.
Lt.
Santome
discussed
the
summer
storage
plan
and
the
steps
that
were
being
taken
to
minimize
inventory
loss
and
damage.
The
Chair
asked
that
staff
prepare
to
discuss
at
a
future
meeting
LAUSDs
plans
for
digital
citizenship
and
training
on
what
to
do
with
devices
during
after-school
activities
and
other
times
when
students
were
at
school
but
would
not
actually
be
using
the
iPads.
Next,
the
Committee
moved
into
a
discussion
of
parent
responsibility
and
training,
as
announced
at
its
September
25,
2013
meeting.
Ms.
Lucas
reported
that
there
was
a
new
Parent/Student
Acknowledgment
Form,
as
of
October
21,
2013,
which
stated
that
the
parent
or
guardian
of
any
minor
who
willfully
cuts,
defaces,
or
otherwise
injures
any
real
or
personal
property
of
LAUSD
or
its
employees,
or
fails
to
return
same
upon
demand
of
LAUSD,
shall
be
liable
for
all
damages
caused
by
the
minor.
It
was
asked
whether
the
device
would
be
allowed
to
go
home
if
a
student
did
not
return
a
signed
Acknowledgment
Form.
Ms.
Lucas
reported
that
LAUSD
allowed
the
devices
to
go
home
anyway.
Ms.
Lucas
said
that
parents
were
not
liable
for
theft
or
loss
of
the
device.
The
Chair
noted
that
the
Parent
Acknowledgement
Form,
dated
October
22,
2013,
still
said
the
parent
was
liable
under
the
Education
Code
for
damage
caused
by
the
student,
and
that
she
was
concerned
LAUSD
was
telling
parents
they
were
not
liable,
but
putting
in
writing
that
they
were.
Mr.
Chandler
said
he
would
review
the
language
of
the
form
with
LAUSDs
Office
of
General
Counsel
to
ensure
the
intent
described
by
Ms.
Lucas
was
clear.
Ms.
Lucas
also
mentioned
that
the
return
rate
of
the
acknowledgment
form
varied
from
school
to
school
with
the
lowest
reported
rate
being
in
the
low
80s
and
the
highest
return
rate
being
99
percent.
Ms.
Lucas
offered
to
get
information
for
the
Committee
clarifying
what
schools
that
enjoyed
a
high
return
rate
of
the
form
had
done
differently
than
schools
with
a
lower
return
rate.
The
Chair
asked
Ms.
Lucas
to
elaborate
at
the
next
meeting
on
how
LAUSD
planned
to
provide
hard
copies
of
instructional
materials
to
students
whose
parents
declined
to
allow
the
device
to
go
home.
27
Ms.
Lucas
emphasized
that
the
parent
education
piece
is
crucial
and
stated
that
LAUSD
was
encouraging
local
schools
to
provide
parent
education
regarding
devices,
to
conduct
needs
assessments
for
parents
to
target
professional
development
to
the
local
need,
and
to
enlist
students
to
facilitate
parent
education
after
school.
The
Chair
noted
that
some
parents
might
want
training
directly
from
LAUSD,
among
other
things,
with
respect
to
keeping
track
of
what
their
students
were
doing
with
the
devices.
Ms.
Lucas
mentioned
that
the
parent
education
piece,
including
the
needs
assessment,
was
under
development
and
would
be
brought
before
a
future
Committee
meeting.
She
also
stated
that
the
local
school
site
had
decision-making
authority
about
embedding
education
regarding
the
technology
in
the
schools
parent
education
plan
but
that
it
is
a
LAUSD
expectation.
It
was
asked
whether
a
parent
could
download
an
app
that
tracks
the
devices
usage
and
suggested
that
parents
may
be
interested
in
having
information
on
how
their
child
is
using
the
device.
Mr.
Chandler
committed
to
do
some
research
and
get
back
to
the
Committee
on
that
question.
Ms.
Lucas
gave
a
brief
description
of
the
plan
to
enhance
the
learning
opportunities
for
young
learners
including
the
use
of
highly
effective
apps.
Ms.
Lucas
also
briefly
discussed
how
the
CCTP
team
was
convening
a
task
force
and
developing
a
Progressive
Discipline
Plan
around
the
technology
integration.
The
Chair
expressed
concern
that
Progressive
Discipline
matrix
was
currently
non-
existent
in
light
of
the
recent
hacking
event
and
previous
information
provided
to
the
Board
stating
that
the
matrix
had
been
created.
The
Chair
stated
that
the
original
question
about
progressive
discipline
related
to
LAUSDs
plan
for
students
who
violate
the
Acceptable
Use
Policy.
The
Chair
also
noted
that
the
Board
Informative
from
Matt
Hill,
Chief
Strategy
Officer,
and
Mr.
Chandler,
dated
September
24,
2013,
stated
that
a
universal
set
of
progressive
disciplinary
actions
has
been
developed
for
students
that
remove
M.D.M.
and
violate
the
acceptable
use
policy.
The
Committee
requested
to
see
that
discipline
matrix,
even
if
a
new
one
was
currently
under
development.
The
Committee
pointed
out
the
need
to
examine
best
practices
to
meet
the
needs
of
ELLs
in
light
of
data
that
suggests
that
LAUSD
has
an
extraordinarily
high
percentage
of
ELLs
concentrated
in
grades
kindergarten
through
third.
A
public
speaker
questioned
whether
teachers
were
teaching
with
books
or
iPads,
ostensibly
in
light
of
the
lack
of
a
complete
Pearson
curriculum
being
available
on
the
iPad.
Several
public
speakers
questioned
the
safety
of
wireless
technology.
November
19,
2013
Several
public
speakers
were
heard
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting.
One
speaker,
Mr.
Urrutia,
questioned
why
LAUSD
would
negotiate
a
contract
in
which
years
into
the
contract,
LAUSD
would
get
the
same
device
model
that
was
provided
in
the
first
year.
He
also
questioned
how
teachers
could
comment
on
the
full
Pearson
28
curriculum
if
it
was
not
available.
Finally,
he
commented
that
the
data
stream
produced
by
the
iPad
usage
would
be
available
to
the
vendor.
Mr.
David
Lyell,
Secretary,
UTLA,
presented
the
results
of
a
survey
conducted
by
UTLA
at
the
47
schools
participating
in
Phase
1
of
the
CCTP.
He
said
there
were
265
respondents
out
of
750
teachers
receiving
the
link.
63%
said
they
did
not
receive
adequate
training.
Mr.
Lyell
said
one
of
the
key
points
in
the
comments
from
those
surveyed
was
that
the
Common
Core
lessons
on
the
iPads
were
not
complete
and
did
not
align
with
CCSS.
Teachers
wondered
how
they
could
be
held
accountable
for
subjects
where
there
was
no
prepared
curriculum.
Also
comments
indicated
that
the
teacher
training
should
be
tiered,
to
better
align
with
the
actual
technological
literacy
of
each
teacher.
Mr.
Lyell
reported
that
45%
of
respondents
were
dissatisfied
with
the
Pearson
training
and
said
more
PD
was
needed.
Even
after
upwards
of
20
hours
of
training,
81%
of
teachers
surveyed
did
not
agree
that
LAUSD
provided
adequate
training.
Mr.
Lyell
reviewed
many
other
comments
and
findings
from
the
UTLA
survey.
Mr.
Lyell
responded
to
questions
and
comments
from
the
Committee.
He
said
that
UTLA
decided
not
to
make
any
conclusions
as
a
result
of
the
survey
but
to
let
the
comments
section
speak
for
itself.
He
also
said
UTLA
was
left
out
of
the
development
of
the
training
and
did
not
want
to
comment
on
the
quality
of
the
training.
Mr.
Hill
said
LAUSD
was
trying
to
get
feedback
on
the
program
using
multiple
methods,
and
that
there
had
been
and
would
continue
to
be
surveys,
including
the
annual
School
Experience
Survey,
focus
groups,
and
input
from
virtual
learning
facilitators
that
work
with
lead
teachers
and
staff
at
schools.
The
Committee
discussed
the
issue
of
how
to
increase
voluntary
participation
in
LAUSD
surveys
and
the
quick
turn-around
required
in
completing
the
UTLA
survey.
The
Chair
reported
that
the
Committee
also
received
survey
results
from
a
survey
conducted
by
AALA,
but
since
representatives
from
AALA
were
not
present,
the
Committee
would
review
those
at
a
future
meeting.
Next,
Mr.
Tucker
addressed
six
questions
raised
at
the
prior
meeting.
He
said
LAUSD
would
need
to
purchase
licenses
after
the
three-year
contract
expires
in
order
to
continue
to
have
access
to
the
Pearson
content,
but
that
any
updates
to
the
content
during
the
three-year
period
would
be
delivered
to
LAUSD
at
no
additional
cost.
The
Chair
stated
that
she
was
originally
told
the
content
would
be
available
for
the
life
of
the
device.
She
asked
for
more
certainty
from
LAUSD
staff,
and
Mr.
Hill
confirmed
that
the
content
would
not
be
available
when
the
contract
expires.
Mr.
Hill
was
asked
what
the
price
would
be
for
the
content
if
it
were
purchased
after
the
three-year
term
expires.
Mr.
Hill
said
that,
while
he
could
not
know
exactly,
based
on
his
review
of
the
market,
prices
for
electronic
curriculum
were
running
about
$25
to
$50
per
subject
per
year.
He
said
in
three
years
LAUSD
would
do
an
29
RFP
for
content
and
that
he
believed
that
the
cost
would
decrease
over
time.
He
said
LAUSD
would
be
able
to
purchase
new
content
in
the
future
using
funds
historically
allocated
to
textbooks
(which
had
averaged
approximately
$60
million
a
year).
Mr.
Hill
said
that
$30-50
million
was
spent
annually
just
for
the
replacement
of
lost
and
damaged
textbooks
and
that
LAUSD
also
had
to
buy
new
versions
when
there
were
adoptions
by
the
state.
The
Committee
noted
that,
even
at
the
low
end
of
Mr.
Hills
estimate,
$25
per
year
for
software
would
be
more
than
$75
for
a
textbook
that
lasts
seven
years.
Mr.
Hill
remarked
that
$25
to
$50
was
the
retail
market
rate
and
expressed
optimism
that
LAUSD
would
be
able
to
command
a
substantial
volume
discount,
like
it
did
on
the
iPads.
It
was
asked
whether
this
RFP
was
unusual,
and
Mr.
Tucker
said
that
the
procurement
process
was
routine.
He
said
the
scoring
matrix
used
to
pick
the
vendor
was
distributed
to
the
Committee
following
the
last
meeting.
He
said
there
were
13
proposals
using
6
different
providers
of
curriculum.
Upon
questioning
about
vendors
and
curriculum,
Mr.
Tucker
explained
that
Arey
Jones
had
submitted
four
different
options
that
included
both
the
Pearson
and
the
HMH
Curriculum
providers
and
Apple
came
in
first
and
fourth
and
the
fourth
place
was
with
a
curriculum
provider
other
than
Pearson.
The
Chair
announced
that
the
Committee
would
discuss
scoring
at
its
December
meeting.
It
was
asked
why
only
those
six
curriculum
providers
appeared
on
the
slide,
when
they
had
heard
that
submitted
proposals
included
content
from
Lexia
Reading,
Amplified
Learning,
Achieve
and
Empower
3000,
and
whoever
made
ST
Math.
Mr.
Tucker
indicated
he
would
look
into
that,
but
that
the
six
on
the
slide
are
the
only
ones
he
recognized
as
a
curriculum
provider,
as
opposed
to
a
content
subcontractor.
The
Chair
referenced
a
recently
approved
Board
resolution,
which
directed
LAUSD
staff
to
focus
on
Phases
1
and
2
of
the
CCTP
during
the
2013-14
and
2014-15
school
years,
expand
the
devices
being
tested
to
include
laptops,
and
called
for
an
evaluation
across
Phases
1,
2
and
1L
to
determine
what
devices
and
curricula
should
be
used
in
any
future
Phases.
The
Committee
requested
an
opportunity
to
review
the
entire
Pearson
curriculum.
An
External
Representative
said
that
she
had
heard
that
it
was
not
yet
completed
and
not
available.
It
was
asked
when
LAUSD
received
the
Math
curriculum.
Mr.
Tucker
stated
that
the
contract
recognized
that
some
of
the
standards
in
Math
had
not
yet
been
completed
and
so
the
curriculum
in
this
area
would
still
be
developed.
The
Chair
asked
that
the
Committee
be
told
at
the
next
meeting
if
the
finished
curriculum
had
been
already
uploaded
to
the
Phase
1
delivered
devices
or
told
when
it
would
be
uploaded.
Mr.
Tucker
said
he
did
not
know
if
the
Pearson
curriculum
was
finished.
A
presentation
slide
that
was
scheduled
to
be
reviewed
at
the
December
meeting
stated
that
the
Pearson
curriculum
was
complete
but
contractually
would
not
be
made
available
to
LAUSD
until
August
2014.
30
Mr.
Tucker
said
that
the
contract
start
date
was
July
16,
2013,
and
that
he
believed
that,
in
order
for
LAUSD
to
be
able
to
use
the
curriculum
on
the
tablets
commencing
July
17,
2016,
an
additional
payment
would
have
to
be
made
to
Pearson.16
It
was
asked
whether
the
proposal
scorers
only
were
able
to
see
tablet
computers
and
whether
they
got
to
see
all
of
the
possible
curriculum.
Mr.
Tucker
said
the
32
evaluators,
19
of
whom
were
either
teachers
or
former
teachers,
were
able
to
evaluate
the
ten
proposals
that
provided
curriculum
on
a
device.
In
response
to
a
question
from
the
Committee,
Mr.
Tucker
and
Mr.
Mark
Hovatter
said
LAUSD
would
not
be
paying
for
services
that
are
not
received
so
LAUSD
would
renegotiate
the
license
agreement
if
curriculum
were
not
delivered.
Mr.
Hovatter
also
said
that
after
the
three-year
contract,
there
would
be
the
possibility
LAUSD
would
use
different
curriculum,
based
on
having
a
new
RFP.
He
also
said
that,
if
LAUSD
did
not
believe
the
Apple
contract
was
providing
what
the
students
need,
LAUSD
would
have
the
ability
to
just
stop
ordering
additional
devices.
Mr.
Hill
said
the
three-year
clock
would
start
when
any
individual
device
is
received
not
when
the
contract
first
started
for
the
first
device
received.
He
said
that
Apple
made
this
clear
in
documents
they
provided.
The
Chair
pointed
out
during
the
meeting
that
a
resolution
had
been
passed
that
directed
the
Administration,
Office
of
General
Counsel
and
the
Board
[to]
undertake
a
quality
review
of
the
current
Apple
contract
and
bring
all
recommended
revisions
and
edits
to
the
Board
for
consideration
as
deemed
appropriate.
During
the
meeting,
Boardmember
LaMotte
was
adamant
that
teachers
should
not
have
to
feel
that
they
were
stuck
with
the
curriculum
if
it
proves
over
time
to
not
meet
LAUSDs
needs.
She
wanted
to
know
if
LAUSD
would
have
the
flexibility
to
move
to
another
more
effective
curriculum,
if
necessary.
Mr.
Hovatter
stated
that
LAUSD
could
terminate
the
contract
for
convenience
or
just
not
purchase
any
more
devices.
Mr.
Tucker
answered
a
number
of
questions
that
had
been
submitted
previously.
In
response
to
the
question
of
whether
LAUSD
would
receive
4th
Generation
iPads
even
when
there
were
newer
iPads
on
the
market,
Mr.
Tucker
stated
that
the
contract
was
for
the
purchase
of
4th
Generation
iPads.
He
pointed
out
that,
akin
to
cell
phones
in
which
newer
versions
are
continually
being
released,
one
must
eventually
stop
and
buy.
He
stated
that
LAUSD
had
bought
what
was
believed
to
be
the
best
item
on
the
market
at
the
time.
During
the
meeting,
Mr.
Hill
also
stated
that
the
reason
LAUSD
had
wanted
the
iPad
4
for
all
schools
was
to
have
a
consistent
device
and
consistent
content.
He
noted
that
in
the
future,
LAUSD
would
bid
and
would
probably
have
multiple
devices.
Later
in
the
meeting,
Mr.
Tucker
returned
to
the
podium
and,
in
response
to
a
question
from
the
Committee,
stated
that
he
would
provide
information
on
the
31
vendor
selection
committee
names,
offices
they
worked
for
and
whether
any
worked
for
Dr.
Jaime
Aquino
in
the
Office
of
Instruction.17
It
was
asked
how
complete
the
Pearson
curricula
were,
and
how
complete
they
were
when
procured.
The
Chair
and
Mr.
Tucker
determined
that
the
Office
of
Instruction
and
School
Support
would
be
asked
to
address
those
questions
at
a
future
Committee
meeting.
Mr.
Chandler
delivered
a
report
on
the
delivery
of
devices.
He
said
that,
as
of
November
4,
2013,
41
schools
had
received
an
aggregate
of
approximately
25,000
iPads.
Mr.
Hill
addressed
the
Committees
concern
from
a
prior
meeting
about
whether
LAUSD
got
a
good
deal
on
the
Apple-Pearson
purchase.
He
reviewed
a
slide
that
was
previously
shown
to
the
Board,
which
broke
down
the
retail
costs
of
the
device
and
the
bundle
of
ancillary
products
and
services,
and
indicated
the
discount
received
by
LAUSD.
The
$768
per
seat
price
paid
by
LAUSD
included
the
following
extras
in
addition
to
the
32
gigabyte
iPad
4
with
Retina
display:
PD ($20); and
Mr.
Hill
stated
that
the
total
estimated
retail
cost
was
$1,000-$1,200.
He
noted
that
the
cost
of
carts
(about
$2,300
each)
and
keyboards
(about
$22
each)
were
not
included
in
the
per-seat
contract
price.
There
were
also
several
infrastructure
devices
and
services
that
were
included
in
LAUSDs
contract
and
price.
He
said
he
believed
LAUSD
received
a
good
price
but
had
not
seen
prices
paid
by
other
districts.
It
was
recommended
that
LAUSD
learn
the
prices
that
other
districts
had
paid
for
similar
one-to-one
initiatives
to
compare
LAUSDs
purchase
price
to
other
districts
and
inform
district
negotiations.
The
Chair
asked
Mr.
Hill
if
he
wanted
someone
on
his
staff
to
do
the
research
or
whether
Board
District
6
staff
should
undertake
the
endeavor.
Mr.
Hill
suggested
that
the
research
fit
within
the
recently
passed
resolution
that
required
an
analysis
of
the
contract.
17 The list of review committee members for RFP #1118 provided by Mr. Tucker is included as
32
33
34
some
respondents
commended
the
technical
support
they
received
and
many
commended
some
of
the
pre-loaded
apps
(e.g.
Edmodo,
Brain
Pop,
and
Notability).
When
it
came
to
key
recommendations,
90%
of
AALAs
survey
respondents
said
LAUSD
should
continue
the
program,
and
they
were
more
divided
on
whether
students
should
take
the
devices
home
(55%
yes,
30%
no,
and
15%
not
sure).
Comments
ranged
from
there
must
be
more
security
before
iPads
are
sent
home
to
the
iPads
are
pointless
if
they
cant
be
taken
home.
The
Chair
acknowledged
that,
if
the
devices
do
not
go
home,
they
must
be
distributed
and
collected
every
day
which
causes
some
issues
at
the
high
schools.
However,
the
Chair
emphasized
a
belief
in
the
importance
of
parents
having
a
say
in
whether
or
not
the
devices
go
home.
The
Chair
also
pointed
out
that
sixteen
respondents
had
problems
with
wireless
connectivity
and
six
respondents
noted
that
they
had
a
problem
with
cyber-bullying.
The
Chair
asked
the
Committee
for
topics
of
concern
that
could
be
addressed
at
the
next
meeting.
It
was
asked
if
anyone
who
reported
to
Deputy
Superintendent
Jaime
Aquino
or
was
evaluated
by
him
took
part
in
the
scoring
of
the
proposals
or
interviews
or
helped
draft
the
rubric
for
scoring
of
the
Pearson
content.
Mr.
Tucker
stated
that
he
had
provided
a
list
of
the
evaluators
and
could
line
those
up
with
who
works
for
instruction.
A
couple
of
External
Representatives
expressed
concern
about
the
reliability
of
LAUSDs
wireless
network,
given
their
experiences
with
the
existing
wired
internet
access
at
LAUSD
schools
being
slow.
Mr.
Chandler
was
asked
to
report
on
the
existing
systems
and
LAUSDs
upgrade
plan
at
a
future
Committee
meeting.
An
External
Representative
asked
if
parents
would
have
access
to
IT
services
for
devices
sent
home.
Mr.
Chandler
said
there
was
24-hour
support.
Mr.
Chandler
said
he
would
also
come
back
to
the
Committee
with
a
presentation
on
the
CCTP
technical
support
plan.
January
7,
2014
The
Committee
had
initially
scheduled
a
meeting
for
December
5,
2013.
However,
Boardmember
and
Committee
Member
Marguerite
LaMotte
had
passed
away
in
her
sleep
the
preceding
night.
The
Committee
meeting
was
postponed
a
month,
and
began
with
a
moment
of
silence
in
honor
of
the
esteemed
Ms.
LaMotte.
The
Chair
determined
that
public
speakers
would
be
heard
at
the
beginning,
middle
and
end
of
the
meeting,
and
called
for
the
first
several
to
speak.
Bill
Gaffney,
who
introduced
himself
as
the
Chapter
Chair
at
Fulton
College
Prep.,
asked
whether
LAUSD
had
weighed
students
lack
of
Wi-Fi
access
at
home
as
an
obstacle
to
effective
use
of
the
devices,
and
considered
funding
Wi-Fi
accessibility
at
some
locations
in
the
schools
or
the
greater
communities.
Another
public
speaker,
Dr.
Gary
Steger
expressed
concern
that
the
iPad
had
limited
functionality
as
compared
to
laptops,
and
wondered
whether
LAUSD
was
in
effect
turning
a
$700
iPad
into
a
50-cent
No.
2
pencil
used
for
the
unfunded
mandate
of
Common
Core
testing.
A
later
public
speaker,
Frederick
Bertz
from
UTLAs
Substitute
Teacher
Committee
asked
35
36
conceived.
Mr.
Chandler
was
asked
to
come
to
the
next
meeting
prepared
to
discuss
the
history
and
projections
of
the
infrastructure
upgrades,
including
how
much
had
been,
and
was
expected
to
be,
spent,
including
any
appropriate
analysis
of
increased
needs
in
several
years
as
technology
continues
to
advance.
One
External
Representative
noted
that
LAUSDs
Help
Desk
response
times
were
already
slow,
and
asked
what
ITDs
plans
were
for
handling
the
additional
anticipated
demand
from
CCTP
and
especially
during
testing.
Mr.
Chandler
reported
that
LAUSDs
Support
Plan
included
hiring
more
people
and
aiming
to
be
open
for
24-hour
support.
In
response
to
what
IT
support
would
be
available
to
parents,
it
was
presented
that
ITD
was
looking
at
various
options
and
models
to
provide
traditional
and
after-school
hours
support.
In
response
to
a
query
regarding
when
24-hour
support
would
be
available,
Mr.
Chandler
stated
that
he
would
bring
the
support
plan
back
to
the
committee
for
conversation
and
that
LAUSD
was
working
with
labor
partners
to
figure
out
how
LAUSD
could
implement
24-hour
support.
Next,
Mr.
Tucker
addressed
procurement
related
questions.
He
indicated
that
LAUSD
was
seeking
one-to-one
program
market
information
from
other
school
districts,
and
distributed
copies
of
the
LAUSD
Device
Procurement
Survey
that
was
developed
to
solicit
this
information.
He
also
responded
to
the
question
of
whether
anyone
who
reports
to
and
is
evaluated
by
Dr.
Aquino
participated
in
the
evaluation
and
scoring.
Mr.
Tucker
presented
a
slide
that
stated
One
non-scoring
technical
advisor,
Gerardo
Loera,
is
Dr.
Aquinos
direct
report.
It
was
asked
why
one
vendor
was
disqualified
for
turning
in
only
a
partial
package,
but
Apple-Pearson
was
chosen
despite
their
curriculum
also
being
incomplete.
Mr.
Tucker
stated
that
Pearsons
product
was
in
development
and
that
the
RFP
did
not
require
the
curriculum
piece
to
be
fully
complete.
The
Chair
asked
how
the
RFP
would
work
for
Phase
1L.
Mr.
Tucker
said
they
would
use
RFP
#1118
as
a
model,
but
make
some
changes,
including
the
description
of
devices.
Once
again,
a
technical
committee
would
analyze
demonstration
devices,
and
those
meeting
basic
requirements
would
go
before
panels
of
representatives
sent
from
each
of
the
participating
schools.
The
vendors
would
then
demonstrate
and
be
scored.
LAUSD
would
ask
for
best
and
final
prices
and
the
schools
would
each
choose
from
among
the
top
three.
When
Mr.
Tucker
stated
that
LAUSD
would
have
zero-tolerance
for
reviewers
having
any
shareholdings
or
interests
in
vendors
or
subcontractors,
it
was
asked
whether
any
shareholders
were
on
the
review
committee
for
the
RFP
that
resulted
in
the
Apple-Pearson
contract.
Mr.
Tucker
replied
that
the
rules
allowed
for
de
minimus
share
ownership
and
other
interests,
but
that
LAUSD
would
instead
use
a
zero-tolerance
standard
for
the
Phase
1L
RFP.
A
number
of
questions
were
asked
regarding
potential
conflicts
and
gifts
involving
Apple-Pearson
and
LAUSD
decision-makers.
Mr.
Hovatter
explained
that
some
LAUSD
staff
received
devices
from
Apple
at
a
conference
they
attended
(along
with
all
other
attendees),
but
that
this
occurred
prior
to
the
RFP
and
that
any
devices
they
received
would
have
been
LAUSD,
rather
than
personal,
property.
Mr.
Hovatter
37
stated
that
LAUSDs
Office
of
Inspector
General
was
currently
doing
a
review
of
this
issue
in
the
context
of
the
Apple-Pearson
procurement
and
would
come
back
with
a
recommendation.
Later,
Mr.
Loera
added
that
LAUSD
had
paid
the
fees
for
employee
attendance
at
the
conference
and
that
the
device
was
not
a
gift.
The
Chair
read
a
conference
announcement
that
stated
that
there
was
a
summer
institute
on
CCSS
and
Digital
Resources
offered
by
the
Pearson
Foundation
July
16th
to
20th,
2012
in
Palm
Desert.
The
announcement
stated
Teachers
who
attend
will
receive
four
days
of
professional
development;
housing
for
four
nights;
all
meals
for
Monday
night
through
Friday
morning;
airline
transportation
and
transfer
to
the
hotel;
paid
registration
fee,
and
use
of
a
District
iPad
given
to
LAUSD
from
the
Pearson
Foundation.18
Mr.
Hovatter
stressed
that
LAUSD
was
seeking
to
avoid
even
these
appearances
of
conflict
for
the
Phase
1L
procurement.
The
Chair
announced
she
would
ask
representatives
of
LAUSDs
Office
of
General
Counsel
to
address
the
Committee
on
applicable
conflicts
policies.
Next,
Mr.
Loera
addressed
the
Committee
regarding
Curriculum
and
Instruction
related
questions.
Mr.
Loera
reported
that
Pearson
had
completed
161
school
visits
as
of
December
4,
2013,
and
that
22
future
school
visits
were
scheduled.
It
was
asked
why
some
schools
were
visited
more
than
others
(e.g.
Roosevelt
once,
but
Westport
Heights
15
times).
Mr.
Loera
replied
that
it
was
based
on
schools
requests
for
extra
visits.
He
explained
that
the
contract
only
required
one
Pearson
training
per
school,
but
that
Pearson
had
been
going
above
and
beyond
in
providing
additional
PD
at
LAUSDs
request.
It
was
asked
whether
these
additional
PDs
were
adding
new
and
exciting
supports
or
just
re-hashing
areas
that
may
have
been
poorly
covered
at
prior
PDs.
The
Committee
also
asked
whether
the
schools
with
more
support
visits
were
doing
better
than
the
ones
with
fewer
PDs.
Mr.
Loera
stated
that
the
feedback
from
Pearsons
first
visits
was
90
percent
plus
positive,
but
that
any
kind
of
training
required
long-term
systemic
revisits.
Mr.
Loera
then
addressed
the
question
of
completeness
of
the
Pearson
curriculum,
stating
that,
while
the
full
curriculum
was
complete,
LAUSD
was
only
allowed
to
access
it
digitally
according
to
the
timeline
set
forth
in
the
contract.
The
Chair
stated
that
the
Committee
had
been
repeatedly
asking
to
know
what
the
scorers
actually
scored
of
Pearsons
content,
and
again
asked
that
the
Committee
be
shown
what
the
review
committee
would
have
seen
of
Pearsons
curriculum.
Mr.
Loera
stressed
that
there
is
a
distinction
between
a
digital
curriculum
being
done
and
being
digitally
available,
and
affirmed
that
the
Pearson
curriculum
had
been
completed,
published
and
even
reviewed
by
the
State.
Mr.
Tucker
offered
to
provide
the
Committee
with
the
actual
score
sheets
that
were
used,
with
comments
on
the
side19,
but
said
the
demonstration
devices,
themselves,
had
been
returned.
The
Committee
suggested
that
it
was
a
difficult
thing
to
look
at
a
paper
version
of
a
curriculum
and
decide
what
would
have
the
most
promise
in
digital
form,
and
even
18
A
notice
to
Stamford
Public
Schools
regarding
Pearsons
2012
Summer
Institute
is
included
as
Appendix
A41
hereto.
It
is
presumed
that
similar
invitations
were
delivered
to
LAUSD
personnel.
19
The
score
sheets
are
included
as
Appendix
A40
hereto.
38
more
difficult
if
the
reviewers
only
reviewed
a
non-existent
digital
version
and
did
not
have
access
to
the
paper
version.
Mr.
Tucker
confirmed
that,
although
they
would
have
also
read
the
Proposers
written
response
to
the
RFP,
the
review
committee
in
fact
scored
only
what
was
loaded
on
the
demonstration
devices.
Mr.
Tucker
offered
to
get
the
language
from
the
RFP
that
described
what
the
vendors
could
provide
in
terms
of
curriculum,
as
Procurement
knew
that
incomplete
curriculum
was
going
to
be
an
issue.
The
Chair
repeated
her
request
for
the
Committee
to
review
the
full
Pearson
curriculum,
and
quoted
an
L.A.
Weekly
article20
that
reported
a
Pearson
representative
insisted
it
was
Apple
that
was
not
allowing
Pearson
to
show
the
Committee
the
content
LAUSD
had
purchased.
Another
External
Representative
suggested
that
L.A.
Weekly,
too,
might
have
only
reviewed
an
incomplete
curriculum
but
not
realized
it.
In
response
to
a
question,
Mr.
Loera
reported
that
LAUSD
was
scheduled
to
receive
the
high
school
math
curriculum
in
August
2014.
The
Chair
asked
when
the
license
would
expire
for
the
high
school
curriculum
that
had
not
been
delivered
yet.
Mr.
Loera
said
he
thought
it
was
three
years
from
delivery,
but
would
find
out
and
inform
the
Committee.
The
Chair
announced
that
the
Committee
will
invite
LAUSDs
Office
of
General
Counsel
to
discuss
questions
about
spending
bond
proceeds
to
purchase
curricula
at
the
next
meeting,
and
would
also
have
a
discussion
of
procurement
ethics.
Mr.
Loera
continued
addressing
the
instruction-related
questions
from
the
prior
meeting.
He
asserted
that
advanced
students
would
not
be
expected
to
move
ahead
in
subject
matter,
but
rather
to
delve
deeper
with
grade
level
content.
He
also
stated
that
Pearson
would
provide
printable
.pdf
files
for
students
to
use
at
home
if
they
could
not
take
(or
opted-out
of
taking)
the
device
home.
Mr.
Loera
discussed
pre-loaded
apps
and
explained
that,
currently,
teachers
could
download
whatever
apps
they
wanted
without
LAUSD
approval.
He
pointed
out
that
parents,
too,
could
download
their
own
apps
once
devices
go
home,
but
that
some
things
would
be
filtered
and
not
accessible
on
the
LAUSD
network.
The
Chair
remarked
that
LAUSD
ought
to
seek
a
balance
between
prescriptive
mandates
and
freedom
of
choice.
In
response
to
a
question
about
differentiation
for
Special
Education
and
ELL
students,
Mr.
Loera
stated
that
this
remained,
and
always
had
been,
the
teachers
responsibility.
He
also
asserted
that
the
devices
afforded
more
flexibility
to
do
this
differentiating
than
paper
and
pencil
materials,
although
no
elaboration
was
offered.
It
was
asked
whether
any
classified
employees
would
receive
PD
related
to
the
devices.
Mr.
Loera
said
there
was
no
money
budgeted
for
classified
PD,
so
LAUSD
had
not
planned
any.
It
was
asked
whether
it
might
be
a
good
idea
for
some
classified
staff
to
receive
PD,
so
they
could
respond
meaningfully
to
students
iPad
questions.
The
Chair
asked
for
the
Committee
to
receive
a
demonstration
of
the
20 See Despite Bad Press, LAUSD's iPad Curriculum Is Impressing Educators, Beth Barrett, L.A. Weekly
39
device
reading
passages
of
text
back
in
other
languages.
The
Chair
also
asked
whether
the
Committee
could
observe
some
classrooms
using
the
devices
in
a
non-
disruptive
way.
It
was
asked
whether
there
were
any
Williams/Valenzuela
problems
for
LAUSD
if
the
iPads
did
not
go
home,
particularly
once
they
successfully
replace
textbooks
as
was
a
stated
goal.
It
was
asked
whether
Instruction
was
actively
pursuing
e-
textbooks
in
furtherance
of
such
goal,
and
Mr.
Loera
said
that
it
was
not,
because
it
preferred
digital
curricula
constructed
with
the
CCSS
explicitly
in
mind.
It
was
asked
why
LAUSD
would
not
just
put
its
existing
textbooks
onto
the
iPads
in
the
meantime
while
it
seeks
digital
curricula.
Mr.
Loera
suggested
that
the
challenge
was
one
of
format
and
compatibility,
but
affirmed
that
Instruction
was
researching
how
best
to
do
that.
Mr.
Loera
then
briefed
the
Committee
on
the
2013-14
SBAC
Field
Test
schedule.
He
noted
that,
while
the
SBAC
test
window
would
open
on
March
18
and
close
on
June
6,
the
California
Department
of
Education
was
likely
to
assign
schools
a
shorter
window
within
that
timeframe.
All
LAUSD
Grade
3-8
and
Grade
11
(and
a
small
sample
of
Grade
9
and
10)
students
would
take
the
Field
Test
for
both
Math
and
ELA.
It
was
asked
whether
the
need
for
so
many
testing
devices
was
driven
by
the
Field
Test
having
no
time
limit.
Mr.
Loera
confirmed
that
unlimited
time
was
one
factor,
but
said
that
LAUSD
followed
the
recommendations
of
Smarter
Balanced
for
how
many
devices
would
be
needed.
It
was
asked
whether,
after
some
time
period,
students
still
testing
could
be
consolidated
(either
with
the
testing
devices
or
in
existing
computer
labs)
and
those
who
were
finished
get
on
with
instruction.
Mr.
Loera
stated
that
LAUSD
would
leave
those
sorts
of
decisions
to
individual
school
sites.
Next,
Ms.
Lucas
addressed
safety
and
students
responsibilities.
She
stated
that
cyber-bullying
was
covered
by
LAUSDs
existing
discipline
policies
and
the
Education
Code.
In
response
to
the
Committees
prior
request
to
review
a
copy
of
the
draft
disciplinary
action
matrix
referred
to
in
the
September
24,
2013
Board
Informative
from
Mr.
Hill
and
Mr.
Chandler,
Ms.
Lucass
presentation
stated
there
was
no
new
progressive
discipline
plan
as
it
related
to
CCTP,
and
that,
after
consulting
with
Operations,
it
was
determined
that
the
best
practice
was
to
craft
an
intervention
matrix
and
school
memo
to
provide
guidance
to
schools.
Ms.
Lucas
stated
that
the
draft
had
been
created
but
the
CCTP
wanted
to
vet
it
with
principals.
Ms.
Lucas
said
she
would
provide
the
draft
to
the
Chair.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
then
reported
that
LAUSD
had
engaged
outside
consultants
to
review
and
provide
recommendations
regarding
Safe
Rooms
for
device
storage.
He
noted
that
the
consultants
report
would
be
classified,
in
order
to
keep
criminals
from
accessing
the
sensitive
information
therein.
Ms.
Lucas
then
addressed
some
parent
education
questions
from
the
previous
Committee
meetings.
She
stated
that
LAUSD
was
creating
modules
to
support
40
schools
in
the
rollout
but
the
over-arching
goal
was
to
support
schools
in
crafting
their
professional
development
and
parent
education
based
on
the
needs
of
the
school.
An
External
Representative
noted
that,
so
far,
parent
education
had
been
mostly
about
why
CCTP
was
important
and
not
how
to
use
devices
or
assist
students
with
content.
Ms.
Lucas
concurred
and
stated
that
LAUSD
was
recommending
that
schools
embed
parent
education
around
educational
technology
in
instruction
so
that
parents
get
a
robust
parent
education
piece,
but
that
it
was
a
school
site
decision.
The
Committee
and
Ms.
Lucas
agreed
about
the
importance
of
having
classified
staff
supporting
the
CCTP
and
rollout.
Ms.
Lucas
mentioned
that,
at
her
former
school
site,
parent
education
was
provided
on
Saturday
and
Sunday
and
on-
line.
She
stated
that
it
was
important
to
look
creatively
at
options
and
offering
parent
options,
but
such
decisions
remained
up
to
the
local
school
site.
She
also
suggested
the
Committee
ask
Ms.
Lagrosa
about
LAUSDs
plans
for
parent
education.
Ms.
Lucas
confirmed
that
parents
would
only
be
financially
liable
for
loss
or
damage
to
devices
in
the
case
of
willful
neglect.
The
Chair
announced
that
LAUSDs
Office
of
General
Counsel
would
be
asked
to
comment
on
what
that
means
at
the
next
Committee
meeting.
It
was
asked
what
the
consequences
would
be
if
a
parent
did
not
sign
the
acknowledgment
form.
For
example,
would
the
student
not
receive
a
device?
Ms.
Lucas
responded
that
she
was
loathe
to
deny
materials
to
students
just
because
their
parents
may
not
be
able
to
read
and
sign
a
form.
In
the
final
group
of
public
speakers,
David
Tokofsky,
AALA
Strategist
and
former
LAUSD
Boardmember,
speaking
as
an
individual
and
not
on
AALAs
behalf,
commented
that
Pearsons
Math
curriculum
included
Envision
Math,
redesigned
or
re-purposed
in
violation
of
the
RFP.
He
also
stated
that
Pearsons
ELA
curriculum
was
aligned
to
the
national
Common
Core
market
and
not
to
Californias
standards,
noting
that
the
American
Revolution
was
embedded
in
Pearsons
Grade
11
ELA
materials
even
though
California
had
moved
it
to
the
Grade
8
curriculum.
Mr.
Tokofsky
further
asserted
that
Pearsons
Math
Curriculum
was
really
just
a
digitized
textbook,
which
was
what
Instruction
said
LAUSD
did
not
want.
February
6,
2014
A
public
speaker,
Sari
Rynew,
expressed
frustration
that
the
iPad
costs
released
to
the
media
by
LAUSD
did
not
include
all
elements
of
cost,
such
as
tax
and
e-Waste
and
whether
these
amounts
include
the
charging
carts.
The
Chair
asked
for
the
Committee
to
be
provided
a
per-seat
cost
for
both
the
instructional
iPads
and
the
testing
iPads,
including
any
associated
purchases
such
as
Wi-Fi
hotspots.
Mr.
Chandler
agreed
to
provide
the
information
to
the
Committee.
Mr.
Oscar
Lafarga,
Administrator,
Student
Testing
and
Assessment
Branch
of
the
Office
of
Data
and
Accountability,
gave
a
report
on
the
School
Technology
Readiness
Survey.
He
said
there
were
three
main
tasks
for
each
school
to
demonstrate
readiness:
41
Identify
computers
in
a
wired
lab
setting
with
the
minimum
requirements
for
testing;
Mr.
Lafarga
reported
that
he
was
the
contact
person
for
the
three
Smarter
Balanced
working
groups
developing
the
surveys.
He
indicated
that
the
California
Smarter
Balanced
technical
specifications
manual
was
expected
to
issue
on
February
11,
2014,
and
that
LAUSD
was
planning
trainings
(in
addition
to
state
assessment
mandatory
training
for
Principals
and
Testing
Coordinators)
which
would
take
place
on
February
19,
and
21,
2014,
and
be
made
available
on-line
later.
It
was
asked
why
the
survey
did
not
assess
wireless
access,
and
Mr.
Lafarga
replied
that
ITD
determined
wired
would
be
the
most
stable.
Nonetheless,
he
stated
that
they
did
gather
wireless
data
from
schools
that
lacked
a
wired
lab.
It
was
asked
why
LAUSD
did
not
seek
wireless
data
even
for
schools
that
had
wired
labs,
since
the
wireless
performance
information
would
be
useful
information.
The
Chair
pointed
out
that
when
the
schools
were
engaged
in
the
survey,
it
may
have
been
useful
to
have
schools
test
any
mobile
devices
they
had
on
site
so
LAUSD
could
learn
more
regarding
what
mobile
devices
work
best.
Mr.
Lafarga
reviewed
the
survey
results
that
had
a
78%
response
rate
and
showed
only
38%
of
the
responding
schools
were
ready
to
use
the
computer
labs
for
testing
in
Spring
2014
(only
16%
for
Options
schools)
as
evidenced
by
successfully
accessing
the
first
question
on
the
practice
test.
It
was
asked
whether
the
schools
could
be
told
how
many
carts
they
would
be
receiving
and
when
they
would
arrive.
An
External
Representative
noted
that
readiness
as
measured
in
this
survey
was
purely
technical
readiness
and
ignored
training
and
other
important
factors.
It
was
asked
whether
schools
that
were
ready
would
not
be
receiving
iPad
carts
for
the
Field
Test.
Mr.
Lafarga
said
that
carts
would
be
distributed
irrespective
of
existing
computing
facilities.
Mr.
Lafarga
was
asked
what,
then,
the
point
of
the
survey
was,
and
he
responded
that
LAUSD
did
not
want
the
testing
to
consume
schools
computer
resources
that
may
have
been
needed
for
regular
instruction
purposes
during
the
testing
period.
Mr.
Chandler
added
that
LAUSDs
plan
was
for
dedicated
testing
carts,
no
matter
what.
It
was
asked
what
was
planned
in
the
way
of
technical
support
during
testing.
Mr.
Lafarga
replied
that
LAUSD
would
provide
schools
with
a
reference
sheet
that
would
identify
solutions
to
possible
problems.
Professional
development
for
teachers
and
technology
assistants
would
be
school-site
decisions
with
LAUSD
providing
the
resources.
The
Committee
expressed
concern
that
a
Principals
labeling
someone
as
a
Technology
Assistant
would
not
necessarily
mean
they
had
any
particular
expertise,
and
Mr.
Chandler
stated
that
ITD
would
be
giving
schools
a
number
to
call
for
support
and
would
have
additional
equipment
available
in
case
of
emergency.
It
42
was
asked
how
LAUSD
was
communicating
with
Principals
about
when
and
how
many
carts
with
iPads
they
would
get
for
testing.
Mr.
Lafarga
replied
that
Principals
would
be
told
very
soon.
The
Chair
suggested
that
anything
that
could
be
done
to
speed
and
improve
communication
at
this
critical
time
would
be
good.
The
Chair
asked
that
details
about
the
role
of
the
Technology
Coordinator
and
the
guidance
the
schools
received
on
how
to
identify
the
coordinator
be
brought
to
the
Committee.
The
Chair
recommended
LAUSD
communicate
better
with
students,
parents
and
school
sites
regarding
the
specific
purposes
of
the
Field
Test.
There
was
additional
discussion
about
how
information
regarding
how
long
the
test
might
take
was
available
through
the
grapevine
but
no
specific
detailed
information
was
being
provided
by
LAUSD.
Mr.
Chandler
then
gave
a
presentation
to
the
Committee
on
the
Virtual
Learning
Complex.
Mr.
Chandler
said
that
he
would
provide
the
Committee
with
an
introductory
network
review
and
that
he
would
make
it
as
nontechnical
as
possible.
He
said
his
office
was
creating
a
Virtual
Learning
Complex
in
three
steps:
Step 2 Increase density (number of users who can access at once); and
Mr.
Chandler
explained
that
the
goal
of
the
Virtual
Learning
Complex
was
to
create
a
high-density
network
to
accommodate
a
computer
device
for
every
student,
and
that
these
infrastructure
improvement
plans
predated
the
CCTP.
He
pointed
out
that
when
talking
to
vendors
and
partners,
they
describe
LAUSDs
network
as
though
it
were
its
own
country.
He
stressed
that
LAUSD
could
not
just
go
to
Best
Buy,
buy
a
few
things
off
the
shelf
and
put
them
in
the
classrooms.
Mr.
Chandler
stated
that
LAUSDs
data
center,
which
is
24/7,
would
rival
Southwest
Airlines
and
Office
Max.
Mr.
Chandler
described
the
elements
of
the
network
from
LAUSDs
connection
to
the
internet,
the
four
geographic
nodes
of
LAUSDs
wide
area
network
(WAN)
and
each
schools
local
area
network
(LAN)
connecting
to
the
nodes.
The
nodes
managed
the
network
traffic
and
provided
redundant
access
in
case
one
of
the
nodes
failed.
LAUSD
must
lay
fiber-optic
cable
from
school
to
node
and
from
node
to
node.
Mr.
Chandler
responded
to
questions
from
the
Committee
about
bandwidth
and
the
ability
to
manage
increased
usage
at
individual
sites.
Mr.
Chandler
advised
that,
with
the
new
scalable
fiber,
LAUSD
would
be
able
to
increase
bandwidth
within
a
day,
just
by
calling
AT&T.
He
also
explained
that
often
when
a
school
has
experienced
a
network
slowdown,
it
was
not
due
to
lack
of
bandwidth.
Rather
the
wireless
network
needed
periodic
tuning
to
function
optimally.
43
Mr.
Chandler
said
he
would
have
to
respond
later
to
the
Committee
about
when
carts
of
iPads
would
be
delivered
to
schools
for
the
spring
testing
program,
and
there
were
several
comments
by
the
Committee
related
to
the
need
for
better
communication
with
schools.
He
also
talked
about
when
early
education
programs
would
have
access
to
devices
stating
that
LAUSDs
design
effort
envisions
supporting
more
than
a
million
students,
because
the
assumption
is
that
eventually
students
would
have
more
than
one
device:
many-to-one.
Mr.
Chandler
continued
his
presentation
by
discussing
the
rollout
timetable
for
upgrading
infrastructure
to
accommodate
one-to-one
(actually,
somewhat
more
than
one-to-one)
devices
at
schools
and
said
that
all
941
schools
at
749
sites
would
be
one-to-one
device
ready
by
September
2015.
Mr.
Chandler
acknowledged
that
prior
to
the
one-to-one
initiative,
the
timeline
was
less
aggressive
but
the
CCTP
accelerated
the
timeline
and
decreased
the
time
to
build.
Discussion
between
the
Committee
and
Mr.
Chandler
included
reference
to
original
LAUSD
presentations
to
the
BOC
that
included
schools
buying
more
computers
and
a
bring-your-own-device
scenario.
Mr.
Chandler
explained
that
the
bring-your-own-device
concept
had
been
discussed
internally
as
the
school
bus
model:
high
school
students
may
take
the
bus
when
they
are
freshman
or
sophomores;
but
when
they
get
to
be
juniors
or
seniors,
they
like
to
drive
their
own
cars
or
take
public
transportation.
The
next
part
of
Mr.
Chandlers
presentation
was
to
answer
questions
that
were
asked
at
the
prior
Committee
meeting.
He
assured
the
Committee
that
iPads
or
school
repairs
was
a
false
dichotomy,
as
LAUSD
was
addressing
both
its
facilities
needs
and
providing
students
access
to
technology
on
parallel
paths,
using
separate
funds
designated
for
those
particular
purposes.
The
Chair
expressed
concern
about
LAUSDs
communications
strategy
around
the
rollout.
She
stated
that
it
would
be
useful
for
ITD
to
communicate
with
school
sites
that
were
concerned
about
bandwidth
issues.
Mr.
Chandler
replied
that
IT
had
created
a
whole
communications
strategy
addressing
that
issue
but
he
would
double-check
on
it.
The
Chair
pointed
out
that
communications
often
had
to
go
through
multiple
levels
prior
to
release
when
schools
just
need
basic
information.
She
noted
that,
rather
than
spending
school-site
funds
on
a
technology
project,
a
school
that
had
received
information
that
the
school
was
about
to
get
a
technology
enhancement
might
instead
use
these
funds
for
PD
or
parent
education
or
something
less
duplicative
of
district-wide
initiatives.
The
Chair
noted
that
Mr.
Chandlers
presentation
stated
that
LAUSD
was
spending
$253
million
to
upgrade
school
network
infrastructure,
but
prior
reports
had
said
that
$500
million
was
planned
for
infrastructure
before
the
CCTP.
She
asked
that
Mr.
Chandler
reconcile
the
various
figures
and
bring
back
to
the
Committee
a
more
comprehensive
and
updated
accounting.
Dr.
Kimberly
Uyeda,
Director,
Student
Medical
Services,
introduced
herself
and
said
she
would
be
responding
to
previous
questions
about
radio
frequency
(RF)
exposure.
She
said
that
LAUSD
had
set
a
cautionary
threshold
in
2013
that
was
44
10,000
time
lower
than
FCC
recommended
thresholds.
She
said
that
the
technical
specifications
required
in
procurement
included
RF
limitations
designed
to
maintain
the
cautionary
threshold.
Dr.
Uyeda
reported
that
the
World
Health
Organization
had
described
electrosensitivity
as
characterized
by
a
variety
of
symptoms
but
that
there
was
no
scientific
basis
to
link
symptoms
to
electromagnetic
field
exposure.
Dr.
Uyeda
also
asserted
that,
from
evidence
gathered
so
far,
there
were
no
adverse
short-
or
long-term
health
effects
from
RF
signals
produced
at
bay
stations
(such
as
a
cell
tower),
and
that
wireless
networks
produced
even
lower
RF
signals.
Dr.
Uyeda
said
LAUSD
tracked
student
health
through
health
office
visits
and
would
be
looking
for
trends
that
might
be
the
result
of
wireless
exposure.
It
was
asked
how
a
student
could
be
accommodated
if
he
or
she
were
sensitive
to
RF
output.
Dr.
Uyeda
said
this
would
be
handled
similarly
to
other
requests
for
accommodation.
Next,
Mr.
Tucker
reported
on
the
results
of
LAUSDs
Device
Procurement
Survey.
Mr.
Tucker
explained
that
LAUSD
put
out
a
survey
to
other
school
districts
about
their
purchases
of
technology,
and
reported
that
there
was
a
very
low
response
rate.
He
described
the
purchases
of
other
districts
but
said
it
was
difficult
to
make
a
direct
comparison
to
the
LAUSD
program.
Mr.
Tucker
then
reviewed
the
Procurement
questions
asked
at
previous
Committee
meetings.
Mr.
Tucker
noted
that
RFP
#1118
was
issued
in
March
2013,
at
a
time
when
no
vendor
would
have
been
able
to
provide
a
full
curriculum.
It
was
asked
whether,
in
effect,
LAUSD
was
choosing
a
partner
and
not
a
curriculum.
Mr.
Tucker
suggested
that
question
be
addressed
to
Instruction.
The
Chair
commented
that,
while
not
opposed
to
partnering
with
a
curriculum
company
to
do
research
and
development,
she
believed
LAUSD
should
be
getting
some
reasonable
value
out
of
that
partnership.
The
Chair
asked
Messrs.
Tucker,
Chandler
and
Silva
to
address
ownership
of
student
usage
data
at
the
Committees
next
meeting.
She
announced
additional
questions
to
be
addressed
at
the
next
meeting:
Did anybody check that Pearsons curriculum was not a digitized textbook;
How
did
Pearson
outscore
in
the
high
school
area
if
it
had
no
high
school
content;
Next,
Mr.
Gregory
McNair,
Chief
Business
and
Compliance
Counsel,
appeared
to
report
on
parent
liability,
the
use
of
bond
proceeds
to
purchase
curriculum
and
45
certain
ethics
questions.
Mr.
McNair
introduced
Ms.
Darlene
Vargas,
LAUSDs
Ethics
Officer.
Ms.
Vargas
then
provided
the
Committee
with
an
overview
of
LAUSDs
ethics
system.
Ms.
Vargas
reported
that
LAUSDs
vision
regarding
ethics
was
for
LAUSD
to
be
a
trusted
organization.
She
said
the
guiding
principles
were
having
an
open
playing
field,
transparency
and
fairness.
The
Ethics
Office
supported
four
codes
within
LAUSD;
the
Employee
Code
of
Ethics,
the
Contractor
Code
of
Conduct,
the
Lobbying
Disclosure
Code,
and
the
Conflict
of
Interest
Codes.
Ms.
Vargas
stated
that
LAUSDs
Conflict
of
interest
Code
includes
disclosure
requirements
on
Form
700.
It
was
asked
whether
individuals
involved
in
the
iPad
procurement
were
Form
700
filers.
Ms.
Vargas
said
that
some
might
not
have
been,
but
that
LAUSD
asked
that
they
file
nonetheless.
The
Chair
asked
about
the
Pearson
conference
attendees
who
received
free
iPads.
Mr.
McNair
explained
that
those
who
were
required
by
code
to
file
Forms
700
knew
how
to
report
gifts,
and
that
anyone
else
who
participated
in
the
procurement
would
have
received
a
document
from
Procurement
asking
the
same
kinds
of
questions
regarding
discloseable
conflicts.
Mr.
McNair
noted
that
LAUSDs
Office
of
Inspector
General
was
looking
into
the
issue
of
the
Pearson
conference,
and
deferred
to
the
Office
of
Inspector
General
to
answer
that
specific
question.
The
Chair
asked
for
the
Committee
to
see
the
document
that
prompts
disclosure
of
ethical
issues.
Mr.
McNair
indicated
there
are
two
such
forms:
one
for
facilities
procurement;
and
one
for
general
procurement.21
Ms.
Vargas
described
the
forms
as
tools
to
help
a
filer
be
aware
of
situations
where
he
or
she
must
disqualify
him
or
herself,
and
added
that
the
cone
of
silence
was
another
tool
to
ensure
a
fair
process.
The
Chair
asked
whether
the
cone
of
silence
around
the
new
curriculum
RFP
prohibited
her
from
talking
to
Pearson
about
the
curriculum
that
LAUSD
had
already
bought.
Mr.
McNair
suggested
that
Pearson
would
reasonably
be
concerned
about
disqualification
and
may
not
want
to
talk
about
it.
The
Chair
expressed
frustration
that
she
had
not
been
able
to
see
the
Pearson
curriculum
already
purchased
by
LAUSD,
and
that
now
an
excuse
was
being
made
that
there
would
be
a
cone
of
silence
due
to
Pearsons
involvement
in
a
new
procurement.
Mr.
McNair
said
he
would
work
with
Procurement
on
finding
a
way
for
the
Committee
to
review
the
curriculum
that
LAUSD
had
already
bought.
Ms.
Vargas
explained
there
were
three
elements
to
ethics:
21 The sample forms provided by Mr. McNair are included as Appendix A42 hereto.
46
The
Chair
thanked
Ms.
Vargas
for
her
presentation
and
asked
how
the
Ethics
department
had
operated
differently
since
its
staff
had
been
cut
from
six
to
two
personnel.
Ms.
Vargas
said
that
with
a
larger
staff,
the
Ethics
office
could
do
more
specializing
and
be
involved
in
more
LAUSD
decisions.
Next,
Mr.
McNair
addressed
parent
liability.
He
said
that
the
same
Education
Code
section
48904
applied
to
parent
liability
for
the
iPads
and
textbooks.
The
standard
was
one
of
willful
misconduct.
The
Chair
asked
who
would
decide
what
fits
into
that
category,
and
Mr.
McNair
replied
that
school
sites
did
for
textbooks,
and
presumably
would
for
the
iPads,
too.
He
added
that
it
was
a
judgment
call
on
the
part
of
the
Principal,
and
that
there
must
be
some
process
for
appeal.
The
Chair
asserted
her
concern
that
parents
be
treated
consistently
throughout
LAUSD.
The
Chair
asked
who
was
responsible
for
training
Principals
on
what
constitutes
willful
misconduct.
Mr.
McNair
indicated
he
would
find
out
and
inform
the
Committee.22
Mr.
McNair
explained
that
the
acknowledgement
form
was
a
notice,
not
a
contract,
and
that
the
parents
were
equally
liable
if
their
student
willfully
destroyed
an
iPad,
whether
or
not
they
signed
the
form.
The
Chair
suggested
that
the
parent
acknowledgement
form
be
added
to
the
LAUSD
Parent/Student
Handbook,
and
that
the
liability
be
clearly
explained
before
parents
must
decide
whether
to
opt-out
of
their
students
taking
the
devices
home.
Mr.
McNair
then
addressed
the
use
of
bond
proceeds
to
purchase
curriculum.
He
said
that
Were
comfortable
with
the
fact
that
the
Pearson
software
is
bond
fundable.
He
distinguished
the
curricula
loaded
on
iPads
from
textbooks
(which
were
not
bond-fundable),
because
the
bond
measures
voters
were
told
funds
would
be
used
for
technology
and
not
for
textbooks.
Mr.
McNair
stated
that
bond
funds
could
be
used
to
purchase
capital
assets,
which
were
defined
in
the
school
accounting
manual
as
anything
with
a
useful
life
greater
than
one-year.
Mr.
McNair
added
that
the
fact
that
iPads
were
taken
off
the
school
site
did
not
change
the
analysis.
He
pointed
out
that
school
buses
and
library
books
were
bond-funded
and
routinely
left
campus.
One
of
the
External
Representatives
reported
a
rumor
that
iPads
were
going
to
start
going
home
again
with
students
beginning
February
20,
2014.
The
Chair
asked
Mr.
McNair
what
LAUSDs
plan
was,
noting
that
a
parent
might
be
reasonably
outraged
if
held
responsible
even
for
malicious
damage
when
the
parents
never
said
they
wanted
the
device
sent
home.
March
5,
2014
The
Chair
reviewed
the
agenda
items
and
determined
to
postpone
CCTP
Issues
Related
to
Personnel,
Follow
Up
on
Questions
Related
to
Curriculum
and
Review
of
22
Ms.
Lucas
reported
back
on
this
at
the
April
24,
2014
Committee
meeting,
indicating
that
principals
general
training
from
Directors
of
Operations
would
inform
the
Principals
exercise
of
professional
judgment
in
making
such
decisions.
See
Transcript
of
April
24,
2014
Committee
meeting,
pages
49-50,
included
as
Appendix
A43
hereto.
47
Material
Related
to
CCTP
to
the
next
meeting.
The
Chair
announced
that
the
Committee
was
being
wound
down
and
would
be
preparing
a
Committee
Report
following
the
final
meeting,
which
was
expected
in
April.
Mr.
Agustin
Urgiles,
Director
of
Education
Applications,
California
Emerging
Technology
Fund
(CETF),
provided
an
overview
of
CETFs
School2Home
program.
He
explained
that
CETF
was
established
by
the
California
Public
Utilities
Commission
upon
the
mergers
of
AT&T,
SBC,
Verizon
and
MCI,
to
help
those
companies
provide
$60
million
to
close
the
digital
divide
in
California.
Mr.
Urgiles
reported
that
the
School2Home
program
was
a
Grade
K-12
strategy,
with
a
middle
school
focus,
aimed
at
integrating
the
use
of
technology
into
teaching
and
learning
at
low-performing
middle
schools
throughout
California.
Mr.
Urgiles
said
CETF
was
currently
partnered
with
four
LAUSD
middle
schools,
and
that
CETF
performed
evaluations
at
two
demonstration
schools
(one
of
which
is
a
LAUSD
school):
Central
MS
in
Riverside;
and
Stevenson
MS
in
Boyle
Heights.
He
reported
that
the
evaluation
concluded
that
buy-in
by
participants
was
of
paramount
importance.
He
also
said
that
deputizing
student
technology
experts,
or
a
geek
squad
was
a
tool
that
generates
more
helping
hands
as
well
as
student-
engagement.
Mr.
Urgiles
indicated
that
CETF
was
still
developing
some
kind
of
affordable
home-internet
program
to
make
available
to
students.
Mr.
Urgiles
mentioned
a
parent
workbook,
which
the
organization
used
in
parent
trainings,
and
explained
that
the
program
employed
lots
of
PD
and
six
hours
of
parent
education.
Mr.
Urgiles
described
a
pilot
done
at
school
sites
to
help
create
enthusiasm
before
a
full
school
rollout.
Parents
must
earn
a
device
to
take
home
for
their
students
through
participating
in
the
six-hour
training
at
the
school
site.
The
parent
education
piece
covered
use
and
care
of
devices,
on-line
safety,
and
showed
parents
how
to
access
the
student
information
system.
Mr.
Urgiles
was
asked
what
the
contingency
plan
was
for
parents
who
did
not
come
to
the
mandatory
training.
Mr.
Urgiles
said
that
it
varied
from
school
to
school,
and
that
sometimes
students
were
allowed
to
have
devices
even
if
the
parents
did
not
attend,
since
they
did
not
want
to
punish
the
students.
Mr.
Urgiles
explained
that,
although
CETF
purchased
devices
for
Stevenson
as
a
pilot,
their
contribution
generally
consisted
of
training,
advice
and
expertise.
He
stated
that
CETF
had
found
the
most
successful
parent
training
was
when
it
was
broken
up
into
three
separate
two-hour
sessions
delivered
on
consecutive
weeks,
but
that
CETF
was
flexible.
The
Chair
expressed
enthusiasm
for
the
model
parent
education
program,
and
lamented
that
LAUSDs
CCTP
did
not
include
a
six-hour
parent
training
at
every
school.
Mr.
Urgiles
described
a
strategy
of
introducing
devices
in
the
classroom
without
sending
them
home.
He
said
this
allowed
the
teachers
to
excite
the
students
about
the
devices
and
recruited
the
students
to
advocate
for
their
parents
to
attend
the
parent
trainings
so
they
could
bring
the
devices
home.
He
indicated
that
CETF
had
been
able
to
achieve
greater
than
80%
parent
participation.
48
It
was
asked
what
CETFs
advice
and
training
would
cost
for
a
typical
middle
school.
Mr.
Urgiles
said
that
CETF
paid
about
$12,000
to
$15,000
per
school,
and
that
he
would
provide
the
Committee
more
complete
costs,
which
would
include
the
school
sites
costs
(such
as
teachers
time
serving
as
facilitators)23.
It
was
asked
whether
CETF
did
anything
to
provide
tech
support
to
parents
on
an
ongoing
basis.
Mr.
Urgiles
replied
that,
while
he
thought
it
was
important,
they
would
leave
that
up
to
the
school
to
determine.
He
added
that
some
schools
leveraged
resources
creatively
by
using
volunteer
top
students
from
local
adult
schools,
and
stressed
that
CETFs
goal
was
to
work
with
schools
to
set
things
up
and
then
to
go
away.
Next,
Deputy
Chief
Santome
reported
on
student
safety
and
device
security.
He
stated
that
prior
to
devices
being
delivered
to
a
school,
ITD
must
establish
technological
readiness
and
connectivity,
and
LASPD
would
do
a
physical
assessment
together
with
the
administrator
relating
to
safe
storage.
He
explained
that
LASPD
officers
were
trained
and
managed
by
his
office
to
provide
advice
to
the
Principals,
who
ultimately
must
decide
the
safe
storage
location.
He
added
that,
where
facilities
improvements
were
needed,
these
could
be
made
narrowly
using
bond
funds
for
CCTP.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
was
asked
about
safety
issues
with
sending
the
devices
home.
He
replied
that
LAUSDs
primary
goal
was
protecting
the
kids,
not
its
inventory.
He
described
the
following
safety
initiatives:
Deputy
Chief
Santome
described
the
mobile
device
management
software
and
reported
that
99%
of
the
devices
had
already
been
upgraded.
The
Chair
asked
that
the
Committee
be
given
a
demonstration
of
the
iPad
being
remotely
disabled
(or
turned
into
a
brick).
Deputy
Chief
Santome
agreed
to
the
demonstration,
but
cautioned
that,
due
to
security
concerns,
they
would
not
discuss
how
this
was
accomplished
at
a
public
hearing.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
said
he
believed
the
tracking
and
web
filtering
were
successfully
working
and
were
important
components
of
the
decision
to
allow
devices
to
go
home.
23
The
financial
data
emailed
by
Mr.
Urgiles
included
totals
of
approximately:
$928,000
for
Muir
MS
(Grades
6-8,
with
1,272
students):
$1.2
million
for
Stevenson
MS
(Grades
6-8,
with
1,945
students);
$1.9
million
aggregate
for
SFIAM,
Vaugh
&
Maclay
(Grades
6-8,
with
1,784
students);
and
$628,000
for
Madison
MS
(Grades
6-8,
with
600
students).
That
was
about
$1,000/student
for
the
smaller
schools
and
$700/student
for
the
larger
ones,
including
about
$412
for
each
student
device.
These
expenses
included
devices,
as
well
as
operational
costs,
but
not
infrastructure.
49
It
was
asked
whether
the
new
MDM
closed
the
loophole
exploited
in
the
hacking
scandal.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
responded
that
it
had,
since
the
new
MDM
was
just
like
Safari
on
the
iPad,
in
that
it
could
not
be
deleted
no
matter
how
much
one
tried.
He
added
that
device
security
and
web
filtering
were
not
the
only
issues,
that
student
safety
and
parent
education
were
also
critical.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
described
the
Law
Enforcement
Working
Group
with
which
he
was
coordinating
and
their
efforts
to
ensure
safety
and
recovery
of
lost
devices,
including
safe
passages,
messaging
to
pawn
shops
and
other
second
hand
retailers
and
identifying
crime
trends
and
patterns.
It
was
asked
whether
the
communication
plan
included
publicizing
the
disincentives
to
theft.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
replied
that
public
service
announcements
were
being
developed.
It
was
asked
who
was
developing
the
lesson
plans
on
student
and
device
safety,
to
which
Deputy
Chief
Santome
responded
veteran,
grade-level
educators,
in
consultation
with
ITD
and
police.
He
added
that
LAUSD
was
partnering
with
Common
Sense
Media
for
the
curriculum.
It
was
asked
whether
pawn
shops
were
notified
when
the
iPads
went
home
in
December.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
replied
no.
It
was
asked
whether
LASPD
coordinated
with
law
enforcement
partners
at
that
time.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
replied
yes.
It
was
asked
whether,
if
LAUSD
decided
to
send
devices
home
again,
it
would
even
be
possible
for
law
enforcement
to
patrol
that
many
areas
at
once.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
said
the
extra
coverage
would
not
be
sustainable.
He
added
that
the
key
would
be
for
the
device
not
to
be
usable
in
unauthorized
hands,
on
the
theory
that
one
would
not
steal
what
one
could
not
use
and
could
not
sell.
It
was
asked
whether
iPads
had
been
stolen
for
parts,
where
useability
would
not
matter.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
replied
that
LASPD
had
not
recovered
any
iPads
stolen
in
burglaries,
which
could
mean
any
number
of
things:
Maybe the thieves became frustrated and threw the devices out;
It
was
asked
if
this
meant
devices
had
been
stolen
which
LAUSD
had
not
been
able
to
track.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
confirmed,
and
stated
that
the
devices
were
either
not
active
or
they
may
be
outside
of
North
America,
where
LAUSD
could
track.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
was
asked
how
many
devices
had
been
lost
so
far.
He
indicated
he
did
not
have
an
exact
number,
but
that
it
was
around
one
in
a
thousand.
Mr.
Chandler
reviewed
the
costs
to
date
for
CCTP
Phase
1,
Phase
2,
and
Phase
1L.
He
reported
that
the
Phase
1
budget
is
$50
million
and
that
$22
million
had
been
spent
and
another
$24.5
million
was
encumbered
so
far.
For
Phase
2,
Phase
1L
and
the
Smarter
Balance
Field
Test,
the
total
budget
was
$114
million
and
$41
million
50
had
been
encumbered
so
far
for
devices,
carts
and
keyboards.
Mr.
Chandler
reported
that
schools
began
receiving
the
iPad
carts
for
testing
on
March
3,
2014
and
delivery
would
be
completed
March
28,
2014.
It
was
asked
what
would
happen
to
the
testing
iPads
and
carts
after
the
tests
were
over.
Mr.
Chandler
said
he
would
get
back
to
the
Committee
about
what
would
happen
to
the
devices
after
the
testing
period,
but
he
expected
the
devices
would
be
returned
to
the
central
office
to
ultimately
have
curriculum
software
loaded
for
redeployment
as
part
of
subsequent
phases.
External
Representative
Nguyen
stated
that
the
BOC
was
told
that
schools
could
use
the
devices
even
after
testing.
The
Chair
said
she
thought
the
Board
was
also
under
the
impression
that
the
devices
would
remain
available
to
schools
after
the
testing.
The
Chair
said
she
heard
of
a
school
that
already
has
devices
to
take
the
tests
but
still
would
be
receiving
testing
devices
that
are
not
needed.
Mr.
Chandler
said
he
would
follow
up
and
maybe
an
opt
out
program
could
be
established.
In
response
to
the
Committees
questions
from
prior
meetings
about
the
expected
costs
of
network
infrastructure
modifications
at
school
sites,
Mr.
Chandler
said
$313
million
was
budgeted
before
the
CCTP
rollout
for
LAN
modifications,
which
the
Board
augmented
by
almost
$65
million
in
June
2013,
plus
another
$66
million
was
approved
in
February
2014
to
ensure
enough
wireless
bandwidth
was
available
to
meet
LAUSDs
needs,
and
another
$194
million
under
the
School
Upgrade
Plan
was
currently
unallocated,
but
earmarked
for
LAN
modifications.
In
response
to
questions
from
the
Committee,
Mr.
Chandler
stated
that
LAUSD
owned
the
data
on
student
usage
not
Apple
or
Pearson
and
that
LAUSD
did
not
share
this
data
with
anybody.
External
Representatives
reported
observing
and/or
hearing
that
internet
connectivity
was
particularly
slow
or
not
working
at
several
LAUSD
schools
on
March
5,
2014,
and
asked
whether
the
schools
were
really
ready
for
the
connectivity
demands
of
the
SBAC
testing.
Mr.
Chandler
said
they
were
not
all
ready
yet,
that
some
would
be
ready
a
week
or
two
before
the
tests,
and
that
the
testing
carts
would
provide
Wi-Fi
connectivity
even
if
the
school
was
not
ready.
Mr.
Chandler
said
he
would
deliver
the
Testing
Support
Plan
to
the
Committee.24
After
the
Committee
heard
public
comments,
several
External
Representatives
expressed
disappointment
that
the
Committee
was
being
cancelled
before
the
end
of
the
project,
as
there
was
still
work
to
be
done.
Others
wanted
to
see
the
Committee
continue
as
an
avenue
for
information
to
flow
to
and
from
the
public,
particularly
as
billions
of
public
dollars
were
at
stake.
One
member
suggested
that
the
importance
of
the
largest
public
works
rollout
of
technology
in
schools
history
was
good
reason
24 Subsequently, at the Committees May 28, 2014 meeting, the Chair noted that the request was
moot,
since
the
Field
Test
had
been
concluded,
and
data
would
eventually
be
available
on
the
actual
testing
supports
and
their
effectiveness.
51
for
the
Committee
to
go
forward
on
a
standing,
rather
than
ad
hoc,
basis.
When
asked
for
her
opinion,
the
Chair
said
she,
too,
would
prefer
that
the
Committee
continue,
although
perhaps
it
would
not
need
to
meet
every
month.
April
24,
2014
Mr.
Loera
presented
a
public
service
announcement
type
video
on
digital
citizenship
from
Common
Sense
Media,
featuring
Chief
Zipperman
of
the
LASPD
as
well
as
other
top
LAUSD
officials.
The
Chair
commended
the
video
and
suggested
that
it
provided
good
lessons
for
citizenship
in
general,
not
just
the
digital
variety.
Next,
Mr.
Loera
addressed
some
Committee
questions
from
prior
meetings.
He
said
the
reason
repurposed
curriculum
was
forbidden
in
the
procurement
process
was
that
the
switch
to
CCSS
required
a
fundamental
redesign
of
the
curriculum,
and
LAUSD
wanted
a
deeply
aligned
curriculum
designed
from
the
ground
up
with
CCSS
as
the
basis.
The
Committee
had
asked
what
evidence
existed
that
repurposed
curriculum
was
not
effective.
Mr.
Loera
replied
that
there
must
be
a
deep
alignment
in
order
to
provide
equity
and
access
to
high-level
rigorous
curriculum
and
content.
The
Committee
had
asked
how
LAUSD
would
know
whether
curricula
were
repurposed
or
not.
Mr.
Loera
said
that
achievethecore.org
provided
tools
for
evaluating
alignment
of
materials
with
the
CCSS,
and
that
LAUSD
also
looked
for
stray
references
to
old
standards,
which
would
disqualify
a
proposed
curriculum.
The
Committee
had
asked
whether
schools
with
more
Pearson
PD
were
better
implementing
the
iPad
rollout.
Mr.
Loera
said
a
survey
was
being
conducted,
but
that
it
was
too
soon
to
know
whether
varying
parameters
in
implementation
affected
student
achievement.
He
did
indicate
that
external
evaluators
had
been
hired
by
the
Office
of
Data
and
Accountability
to
look
into
that
issue.
Mr.
Loera
responded
to
a
number
of
other
outstanding
Committee
questions.
Mr.
Loera
stated
that
the
license
to
the
Pearson
content,
for
each
school,
would
run
for
three
years
from
when
that
school
received
the
curriculum.
Mr.
Loera
explained
that
long-term
substitutes
would
receive
PD
together
with
regular
teachers,
but
that
day-to-day
substitutes
would
not,
and
that
LAUSD
has
not
provided
training
for
classified
staff.
He
added
that
parent
training
was
budgeted
at
10%
of
the
training
budget
and
allocated
to
schools
to
spend
as
they
see
fit.
It
was
asked
whether
LAUSD
was
directing
any
parent
training
materials
and
procedures
or
otherwise
conducting
quality
control.
Ms.
Lucas
explained
that
there
were
modules
and
handbooks
for
schools
to
use,
currently
in
English
and
Spanish
and
being
translated
to
other
languages,
too.
It
was
asked
whether
there
were
any
plans
to
train
at
least
the
Classified
Instructional
Aides,
Special
Education
Aides
or
Teaching
Assistants,
all
of
whom
worked
directly
with
students.25
Mr.
Loera
said
there
were
no
district-
wide
plans
for
that,
but
that
school
sites
were
free
to
use
their
budgets
for
that
if
25
An
External
Representative
suggested
that
Senior
Office
Technicians,
Office
Technicians
and
Library
Aides
were
additional
classified
employees
who
would
be
better
able
to
assist
students
if
they
received
appropriate
PD.
52
they
wished.
The
Chair
warned
of
wide
discrepancies
in
perceived
training
quality,
particularly
for
parent
trainings,
and
noted
that
people
were
working
on
this
in
various
departments
e.g.
ESCs,
Curriculum,
Parent
Divisions
but
that
it
did
not
appear
they
were
coordinating
their
efforts.
Mr.
Loera
indicated
that
the
intervention
matrix
requested
by
the
Committee
was
not
ready
to
be
publicly
released
yet.
The
Chair
asked
when
it
would
be
available,
and
Ms.
Lucas
said
by
the
beginning
of
the
next
school
year.
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
about
the
planned
quantity
of
digital
citizenship
lessons,
and
he
advised
that
it
would
not
be
based
on
hours
of
instruction,
but
on
behaviors
evident
in
students
use
of
the
technology.
Ms.
Lucas
said
LAUSD
was
working
with
Common
Sense
Media
to
develop
plans
for
each
grade
level,
including
an
initial
boot
camp
followed
by
digital
citizenship
lessons
embedded
in
regular
lessons.
Next,
Ms.
Lucas
described
two
types
of
technology
support
personnel,
Virtual
Learning
Coordinators
(VLC)
and
Micro
Computer
Support
Associates
(MCSA)
and
their
respective
roles.
The
Committee
referred
to
the
Superintendents
draft
budget
and
asked
whether
the
75
new
VLCs
in
the
budget
for
the
2014-15
school
year
were
just
for
existing
Phases.
Ms.
Lucas
said
that,
although
the
budget
allows
for
all
these
positions,
LAUSD
would
only
hire
based
on
the
number
of
schools
actually
approved
by
the
Board.
It
was
asked
whether
the
VLCs
provide
support
just
for
iPads
or
for
all
LAUSD
technology.
Ms.
Lucas
explained
that
the
VLCs
can
only
help
with
iPads
and
other
devices
implemented
through
the
CCTP,
because
they
were
funded
from
bond
proceeds.
The
Committee
had
requested
copies
of
the
conflict
of
interest
documents
provided
to
persons
participating
in
the
procurement
process.
Ms.
Lucas
said
Mr.
Tucker
of
Procurement
would
address
the
request
at
a
later
date.
The
Committee
had
asked
about
training
for
Principals
in
determining
willful
misconduct
with
respect
to
iPads.
The
Chair
suggested
that
LAUSD
keep
careful
track
of
the
data
on
how
parents
were
treated,
to
ensure
that
it
was
equal
and
equitable
across
the
district.
Ms.
Lucas
reported
that
the
Parent
Acknowledgment
Form
would
not
be
included
in
the
Parent/Student
Handbook
for
the
2014-15
school
year,
since
most
schools
would
still
not
be
CCTP
schools.
The
Committee
had
asked
what
LAUSDs
plan
was,
and
what
guidance
was
being
given
to
Principals,
with
respect
to
devices
going
home.
Ms.
Lucas
asserted
that
there
were
checklists
of
steps
that
must
be
taken.
She
said
some
were
LAUSDs
responsibility,
like
robust
web
filtering,
and
others
would
be
the
schools
responsibility,
such
as
gathering
parent
opt-in
documentation.
The
Chair
asked
for
this
checklist,
and
Ms.
Lucas
said
it
was
in
progress
and
would
be
available
in
five
to
53
six
weeks.26
The
Chair
noted
that
it
was
critical
that
the
Board
take
responsibility
to
approve
whatever
policy
was
ultimately
adopted.
It
was
asked
what
the
plan
was
to
ensure
students
who
do
not
opt-in
would
still
have
materials
needed
for
academic
progress.
Ms.
Lucas
said
that
they
were
working
with
school
sites
to
develop
policies
around
these
equity
and
access
issues.
She
added
that
it
could
include
providing
e-curriculum
on
a
home
device,
or
providing
a
print-out
of
homework
materials.
It
was
asked
what
portion
of
parents
had
been
opting
out.
Ms.
Lucas
said
that,
at
her
school,
it
was
only
three
out
of
180.
An
External
Representative
noted
that
Ms.
Lucass
school
was
probably
the
best
case
scenario,
and
Ms.
Lucas
agreed.
It
was
asked
whether
it
would
even
be
possible
to
have
printed
equivalents
once
the
curriculum
was
fully
digitized.
The
Chair
noted
that
printing
may
also
be
a
logistical
problem
and
that
LAUSD
may
not
be
able
to
achieve
scale
discounts,
because
the
schools
would
be
moving
at
their
own
paces.
The
Committee
had
previously
asked
what
would
be
done
with
the
testing
devices
after
the
testing
period.
Ms.
Lucas
reported
that
a
decision
had
not
yet
been
made,
but
that
concepts
included:
It
was
asked
what
the
concern
was
with
leaving
devices
at
the
schools.
Mr.
Loera
implicated
summer
storage
security
concerns.
It
was
asked
whether
that
issue
would
apply
equally
to
the
one-to-one
devices
as
it
might
to
testing
devices.
Ms.
Lucas
said
that
the
plan
at
that
time
was
to
store
all
devices
centrally,
both
for
security
reasons
and
so
they
could
be
wiped
and
reconfigured
based
on
lessons
learned
from
Phase
1.
Ms.
Lucas
was
asked
how
summer
PD
would
be
handled,
and
she
replied
that
the
PD
design
and
dates
were
still
under
development
and
would
be
posted
to
the
CCTP
website.
The
Committee
observed
that,
in
the
short-term,
devices
would
make
student
back-
packs
heavier,
even
though
the
promise
of
the
technology
was
to
eliminate
the
need
for
textbooks.
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
what
was
being
done
to
put
existing
textbooks
on
iPads
in
e-format.
He
reported
that
staff
was
looking
into
that,
but
there
were
issues
to
iron
out
with
respect
to
getting
the
right
formats
from
publishers
and
ensuring
LAUSD
had
the
necessary
rights.
Several
External
Representatives
emphasized
the
value
of
pushing
to
digitize
textbooks
and
lighten
student
backpacks
as
soon
as
possible.
One
External
Representative
suggested
that
there
would
be
public
outcry
if
the
devices
made
backpacks
heavier,
rather
than
lighter,
when
they
go
home.
The
Chair
asked
Instruction
to
put
together
a
table
showing
the
availability
of
textbooks
on
LAUSD
iPads,
including
explanation
of
why
or
why
not.
26 As of the date of this Report, such checklist has still not been published, although a draft was
furnished to the Chairs office. See Findings and Recommendations Timelines, infra.
54
Mr.
Loera
said
he
would
work
with
Integrated
Library
and
Textbook
Services
to
do
so.
Ms.
Lucas
then
reported
that
the
CCTP
was
currently
under
budget.
The
Chair
asked
what
was
meant
by
burn
rate
in
the
budget
presented,
as
well
as
forecasts.
Mr.
Loera
said
an
answer
would
be
brought
to
the
next
Committee
meeting.
Next,
Deputy
Chief
Santome
appeared
before
the
Committee
to
discuss
device
storage
and
security.
He
reported
that
there
was
currently
no
budget
for
public
service
announcements,
but
that
KLCS
had
produced
them
using
existing
personnel.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
then
introduced
Marlon
Shears,
Jairu
Tzunun
and
Oliver
Hammet
from
ITD
to
demonstrate
Lock-it/Freeze-it/Track-it.
Mr.
Shears
said
that,
for
security
reasons,
he
preferred
not
to
do
a
public
demonstration,
but
would
answer
questions
as
long
as
they
did
not
have
to
give
away
any
sensitive
information.
The
Chair
again
explained
that
the
Committee
did
not
want
them
to
show
the
public
how
they
turn
the
device
into
a
brick,
just
that
they
can.
She
expressed
some
frustration
that
the
Committee
had
asked
for
this
demonstration
multiple
times
and
had
thus
far
been
stymied.
External
Representatives
discussed
possible
methods
to
defeat
a
security
system,
and
whether
it
might
be
counterproductive
to
hold
the
demonstration
in
public.
The
Chair
reminded
the
External
Representatives
that
all
meetings
are
public,
and
stated
that
either
circumventing
the
security
system
could
be
done
or
it
could
not.
She
added
that
if
it
could
not
be
done,
then
a
public
demonstration
would
be
valuable,
and
if
it
could
be
done,
then
LAUSD
would
need
to
do
more
work
before
the
devices
went
home
with
students.
The
Chair
announced
that
the
demonstration
would
take
place
at
the
next
meeting.
In
response
to
some
Committee
concerns
that
the
security
features
were
easily
defeated,
Mr.
Shears
advised
that
the
loopholes
previously
exploited
had
been
closed,
the
devices
had
been
upgraded
(though,
perhaps
not
the
ones
given
to
Committee
Members
and
External
Representatives),
and
even
the
third-party
experts
hired
by
LAUSD
to
try
to
circumvent
the
new
security
features
could
not
do
so.
Mr.
Shears
explained
that
the
device
security
was
not
initially
so
robust,
because
LAUSD
was
relying
on
its
network
for
web-filtering
under
the
assumption
that
devices
would
only
be
used
on
campus.
An
External
Representative
asked
whether
parents
could
be
notified
when
a
students
device
is
tampered
with.
Mr.
Shears
said
that
LAUSD
was
in
an
RFP
for
the
next
web-filtering
solution
and
could
add
that
as
a
required
feature.27
Deputy
Chief
Santome
reported
that
LASPD
increased
patrols
for
Spring
Break
and
had
no
devices
stolen,
although
there
were
some
other
break-ins.
It
was
asked
whether
LASPD
could
sustain
that,
and
Deputy
Chief
Santome
replied
if
I
hire
80
more
officers.
The
Deputy
Chief
stated
that
campus-securing
procedures
have
not
been
revised
as
a
result
of
devices
or
carts.
He
explained
that
schools
varied
widely
in
construction
and
vulnerability
and
a
one-size-fits
all
procedure
would
not
be
helpful.
The
Chair
announced
that
she
would
like
to
find
out
whether
hiring
more
27
Was
such
a
required
feature
added
to
the
RFP?
55
Foundation
was
a
customer
of,
and
grant
provider
to,
AIR,
and
that
Pearson
served
AIR
as
an
independent
contractor
(receiving
over
$18
million
in
such
capacity
in
2012),
and
questioned
whether
these
relationships
might
create
any
conflicts
of
interest.
See
AIRs
Form
990,
included
as
Appendix
A39
hereto,
and
the
Bill
&
Melinda
Gates
Foundations
website
(http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Search#q/k=American%20Institutes).
56
primarily
in
the
initial
roll-out.
She
added
that
changes
in
direction,
such
as
the
devices
going
home
or
not,
contributed
to
delays.
Dr.
Lim
reported
that,
for
the
SBAC
Field
Tests,
91%
(or
812,557)
of
888,740
test
sessions
were
successfully
started
district-wide,
of
which
95%
(or
772,369)
were
completed.
It
was
asked
whether
Dr.
Lim
knew
why
some
did
not
finish.
Dr.
Lim
replied
that
the
fact
that
many
students
who
were
not
actually
members
of
a
valid
category
of
Field
Test
test-taker
had
attempted
to
take
the
assessments
skewed
these
percentages
somewhat
to
the
negative
side.
Principals
and
Testing
Coordinators
reported
lots
of
connectivity
issues:
some
related
to
LAUSDs
infrastructure;
some
due
to
the
devices;
and
some
resulting
from
the
consortiums
website,
itself.
The
Principals
and
Testing
Coordinators
asserted
that
it
would
be
helpful
to
receive
the
devices
earlier
in
the
year,
so
students
and
teachers
could
have
more
time
to
familiarize
themselves
with
the
equipment
before
the
testing
window,
and
advised
that
more
devices
would
be
helpful
in
order
to
timely
move
students
through
the
assessments.
They
also
indicated
a
desire
for
additional
face-
to-face
training,
rather
than
relying
so
heavily
on
videos.
An
External
Representative
related
that
she
had
heard
desktops
were
better
than
laptops,
which
were
better
than
the
iPads
for
Field
Test
purposes
from
some
students
who
ended
up
taking
the
Field
Test
on
multiple
devices.
She
asked
whether
Dr.
Lims
office
had
gathered
device-comparative
information.
Dr.
Lim
said
that
they
were
looking
at
what
kinds
of
devices
were
used,
but
that
they
did
not
perform
a
true
manipulation
from
which
to
scientifically
investigate
this
variable.
Another
External
Representative
noted
that
some
schools
which
received
the
testing
iPads
chose
not
to
use
them,
because
they
felt
they
were
better
trained
and
prepared
on
other
equipment.
Dr.
Lim
said
that
she
had
heard
anecdotally
that
desktops
were
best
for
the
test,
but
that
mobile
devices
were
better
for
classroom
instruction.
Another
External
Representative
suggested
that
the
real
weakness
of
the
iPad
for
testing
was
the
screen-size,
and
asked
whether
LAUSD
would
have
any
hard
performance
data,
rather
than
just
surveys
of
student
perceptions.
Dr.
Lim
said
LAUSD
would
receive
no
outcome
data
to
compare.
She
added
that
even
SBAC
could
not
analyze
the
effects
of
testing
devices,
because
they
did
not
know
what
devices
students
were
using
even
though
LAUSD
asked
them
to
have
such
a
survey
embedded
in
the
Field
Test.
The
Chair
suggested
that
LAUSD
could
set
up
an
experimental
mock
test
to
compare
the
different
devices.
Mr.
Chandler
advised
that,
for
most
infrastructure
connectivity
problems,
there
could
be
a
relatively
quick
and
simple
fix
of
tuning
the
network,
although
school
sites
were
not
necessarily
aware
of
this.
It
was
asked
whether
the
carts
worked
well
enough
that
LAUSD
may
not
need
to
get
every
classroom
wired
to
provide
the
necessary
connectivity
for
a
one-to-one
program.
Mr.
Chandler
replied
that
the
carts
were
not
as
robust
or
long-lived
a
solution.
It
was
asked
what
the
evaluation
revealed
about
the
need
to
improve
communication
between
central
offices
and
school
sites.
Dr.
Lim
said
that
57
information
came
very
late
this
year
and
that,
as
a
result,
there
was
a
problem
of
overload
when
it
got
pushed
out
to
the
schools.
Next,
Mr.
Loera
reported
on
digital
textbooks.
He
stated
that
substitution
was
not
Instructions
goal,
rather
they
wanted
higher
level
technological
integration
consisting
of
augmentation;
modification;
and
ultimately
redefinition.
He
also
explained
that,
unfortunately,
LAUSD
did
not
own
the
digital
licenses
to
its
existing
textbooks,
and
that
LAUSD
would
have
to
essentially
re-purchase
its
existing
textbooks
in
order
to
digitize
them.
External
Representatives
expressed
concern
that
LAUSD
had
no
plans
to
use
the
devices
as
e-readers
for
digitized
textbooks.
Daphne
Congdon,
Director,
Information
Technology,
Finance
and
Administration,
presented
an
update
on
the
CCTP
budget.
She
explained
that
burn-rate,
as
used
in
the
hand-out,
meant
the
percentage
of
the
total
budget
that
had
already
been
spent
and/or
contracted.
It
was
asked
who
the
staff
would
be
for
Phases
2
and
1L.
Mr.
Chandler
said
it
would
be
existing
staff.
It
was
asked
why
the
contingency
line
went
up
by
so
much,
essentially
the
same
$6.4
million
net
by
which
the
tablet
device
subtotal
was
reduced.
Ms.
Congdon
replied
that
this
was
to
keep
the
total
authorized
amount
the
same.
The
Chair
suggested
that
the
Board
ought
to
have
a
say
before
money
is
re-allocated
in
this
manner.
Mr.
Chandler
informed
the
Committee
that
the
email
system
was
being
expanded
and
made
available
to
students,
although
this
initiative
was
in
the
early
stages
of
pilot.
It
was
asked
whether
other
cloud
services
would
be
made
available,
too,
such
as
DropBox.
Mr.
Chandler
said
that
they
were
researching
different
types
of
file-
sharing
services,
and
that
there
were
better,
corporate,
versions
that
could
be
integrated
better
if
controlled
centrally.
Mr.
Chandler
was
asked
about
the
timing
of
this
rollout.
He
replied
that
the
migrations
would
occur
in
batches
from
October
to
December
2014,
with
feedback
taken
and
considered
along
the
way.
The
Chair
asked
Mr.
Chandler
to
send
a
breakdown
of
Bond
versus
General
Fund
money
for
each
of
the
budgeted
items.29
Mr.
Chandler
agreed
and
pointed
out
that
LAUSD
was
building
infrastructure
on
the
basis
of
an
ultimate
Bring
Your
Own
Device
environment,
so
it
was
platform
agnostic.
Next,
the
Committee
covered
questions
related
to
procurement.
As
no
one
was
available
from
Procurement
to
present
these
items,
the
Chair
read
their
responses
aloud.
In
response
to
the
Committees
request
for
the
entire
set
of
instructional
materials
evaluation
tools
that
were
used
to
assess
the
various
bids,
Procurement
had
provided
excerpts
and
appendices
from
RFP
#1118,
indicated
that
the
scoring
sheets
were
previously
provided
and
stated
that
the
demonstration
devices
were
no
longer
available.
In
response
to
the
Committees
question
regarding
how
did
the
Pearson
curricula
outscore
others
in
the
high
school
area
if
no
high
school
content
was
provided,
Procurement
wrote
The
evaluators
had
three
ways
to
score
29 As the slide included asterisks noting Bond versus General Fund items, there may have been an
assumption by LAUSD staff that the information had been provided within the slide.
58
curriculum.
The
written
description
of
what
the
design
would
look
like,
printed
copies
of
what
the
design
would
look
like,
and
the
curriculum
as
provided
on
the
demonstration
device.
Evaluators
could
use
all
three
to
score.
Those
with
less
scored
lower.
The
Chair
noted
that
this
was
an
unsatisfying
answer.
Procurement
claimed
that
the
Pearson
curriculum
did
not
receive
different
scores
on
different
devices.
The
Committee
discussed
rumors
that
some
schools
might
buy
devices
without
content,
outside
of
the
CCTP,
before
those
schools
were
included
in
an
official
phase.
An
External
Representative
asked
how
LAUSD
could
create
expectations
in
the
community,
when
it
was
unclear
what
the
schools
would
be
doing.
The
Chair
responded
that,
as
a
practical
matter,
schools
did
not
have
the
financial
wherewithal
to
go
one-to-one
on
their
own.
She
added
that
ideally
schools
would
decide,
with
parental
input,
what
technological
tools
they
use.
Next,
Mr.
Loera
reported
to
the
Committee
on
a
Take
Home
Test
Pilot
where
two
schools
would
select
approximately
30
students
each
who
would
bring
their
devices
home
between
May
19,
and
June
2,
2014.
Mr.
Loera
distributed
a
copy
of
a
Board
Informative
dated
May
19,
2014
describing
this
pilot
program.
Among
other
things,
a
students
participation
in
the
Take
Home
Test
Pilot
required
parent/guardian
opt-
in
and
execution
of
the
Acknowledgement
Form,
special
training
from
LASPD
regarding
safety,
and
participation
in
digital
citizenship
lessons.
In
addition,
the
Board
Report
stated
that
ITD
installed
an
upgraded
web
filtering
system,
that
LASPD
was
coordinating
with
local
law
enforcement
agencies
to
ensure
coordination
and
awareness
of
the
program,
and
the
CCTP
Mobile
Device
Management
team
would
be
monitoring
all
devices
in
the
pilot.
It
was
asked
whether
students
were
chosen
because
they
were
typical,
or
because
they
were
the
least
likely
to
mess
up.
Mr.
Loera
replied
that,
while
the
schools
were
a
representative
sample,
the
particular
students
were
chosen
by
the
Principals
on
an
unknown
basis.
After
the
Committee
heard
from
public
speakers,
Mr.
Shears
introduced
a
demonstration
of
security
features
which
would
allow
LAUSD
to
remotely
and
automatically
disable
devices.
His
team
members,
Jairu
Tzunun
and
Jet
Decena
demonstrated
two
scenarios:
A device that had an incorrect passcode entered too many times; and
In
the
incorrect
password
case,
the
device
failed
over
to
a
disabled
screen.
Mr.
Tzunun
explained
that
one
must
then
go
to
ITD
in
order
to
have
the
device
re-
activated.
Next,
Mr.
Tzunun
demonstrated
killing
another
device
remotely.
He
explained
that
it
was
being
wiped
of
content,
restored
to
defaults
just
like
a
new
device
but
one
protected
by
LAUSDs
security
features.
After
a
few
minutes,
the
device
reset
and
presented
a
hello
screen
which
prompted
the
user
to
connect
to
a
59
network.
Once
connected,
the
device
asked
for
a
LAUSD
single
sign-on
password.
Mr.
Tzunun
explained
that,
at
that
point,
if
one
was
not
an
authorized
LAUSD
user,
one
would
not
be
able
to
activate
the
device,
so
it
was
as
good
as
a
brick.
The
Committee
expressed
some
concern
that
the
device
told
accurate
time,
had
a
friendly
looking
hello
message,
and
did
not
really
look
like
a
brick.
Mr.
Tzunun
replied
that
the
device
had
no
functionality,
except
as
a
paperweight,
since
a
user
could
not
get
past
that
screen.
It
was
asked
whether
a
more
strongly
worded
message,
like
Turn
the
device
back
in
to
LAUSD,
Jerk,
might
be
more
appropriate.
Mr.
Tzunun
replied
that
there
was
some
tracking
value
to
having
the
user
keep
the
device
on.
Mr.
Tzunun
went
on
to
demonstrate
what
would
happen
at
this
point
if
someone
entered
a
LAUSD
password
(perhaps
a
stolen
password,
in
the
hypothetical
case).
The
device
initially
appeared
to
be
booting
up,
and
then
a
window
that
looked
like
Safari
launched
automatically.
Mr.
Tzunun
said
that,
if
a
user
attempted
to
navigate
anywhere
(and
Mr.
Decena
demonstrated
an
attempt
to
go
to
yahoo.com),
the
device
would
be
locked
and
the
user
could
not
do
anything
with
it.
The
screen
turned
red
and
displayed
a
message
indicating
it
was
LAUSD
property,
stating
it
could
only
be
activated
by
an
authorized
LAUSD
user,
and
giving
instructions
for
how
to
return
it
to
LAUSD.
Mr.
Tzunun
was
asked
about
the
apps
that
appeared
to
be
loading
when
the
device
rebooted,
and
he
stated
that
these
were
pushed
out
so
ITD
could
collect
information
about
the
person
attempting
to
use
the
device
without
that
person
knowing.
The
Chair
asked
Mr.
Tzunun
to
take
the
device
back
to
the
prior
screen.
He
said
that
could
not
be
done,
even
if
one
turned
it
off
and
back
on,
it
would
return
to
the
red
screen.
II.C.
Pearson
Curriculum
Demonstration
Though
not
part
of
the
Committees
official
business,
on
March
19,
2014,
Pearson
gave
a
closed-door
presentation
to
various
Board
offices
and
their
invited
guests,
which
included
a
number
of
the
External
Representatives,
in
accordance
with
applicable
law.
By
the
time
Pearsons
content
was
finally
made
available
in
this
limited
setting,
LAUSD
had
RFPs
out
for
laptops
and
high
school
curriculum;
therefore,
the
discussion
was
moderated,
ostensibly
to
avoid
any
violations
of
the
cone
of
silence
or
other
procurement
rules.
II.D.
Preparation
of
Report
After
the
Committees
final
meeting
on
May
28,
2014,
the
Chairs
office
prepared
a
draft
report
based
on
the
materials
presented
or
otherwise
available
to
the
Committee,
External
Representatives,
and
the
public.
This
involved
reviewing
Committee
meeting
agendas,
transcripts
and
video,
the
various
reports
and
slides
presented
to
the
Committee
by
LAUSD
staff
and
others,
as
well
as
relevant
articles
and
reports,
many
of
which
have
been
included
as
Appendices
hereto.
The
Chairs
office
produced
a
rough
draft
of
this
Report
and
made
such
draft
available
for
review
and
comment
to
all
members
of
the
Committee,
to
External
Representatives
and
to
select
LAUSD
staff
who
had
participated
in
the
Committees
60
person
signing
it
would
keep
the
draft
report
strictly
confidential
and
not
use
it
for
any
purpose
other
than
reviewing
the
draft
report,
is
included
as
Appendix
A44
hereto.
31
A
copy
of
the
Confidentiality
and
Nondisclosure
Certification
tendered
to
Boardmember
Galatzan
61
32 For example, see LA School Officials Discussed iPad Contracts Before Bids, Annie Gilbertson, KPCC,
August
22,
2014,
and
LAUSDs
$1-Billion
iPad
Effort
Beset
by
Problems,
Report
Finds,
Howard
Blume,
Los
Angeles
Times,
August
22,
2014.
62
Overview
LAUSD has been seeking to create a Virtual Learning Complex in three steps:
Step 2 Increase density (number of users who can access at once); and
The
goal
of
the
Virtual
Learning
Complex
has
been
to
create
a
high-density
network
to
accommodate
a
computer
device
for
every
student.
According
to
Mr.
Chandler,
using
new
scalable
fiber,
LAUSD
is
able
to
increase
bandwidth
within
a
day
-
just
by
calling
AT&T.
These
infrastructure
improvement
plans
predated
the
CCTP
by
several
years,
but
had
been
significantly
accelerated
to
facilitate
it.
It
appears
that
the
rapid
acceleration
of
the
VLC
Project
was
due,
in
part,
to
LAUSDs
desire
to
have
one-to-one
technology
in
place
to
participate
in
the
Spring
2014
SBAC
Field
Test.
Originally,
at
the
August
23,
2013
CCTP
Ad
hoc
Committee
meeting,
Mr.
Chandler
stated
that
LAUSDs
goal
was
to
have
all
schools
upgraded
by
late
August
2014.
On
that
date,
the
timeline
was
described
as
a
daunting,
compressed
schedule
that
would
put
into
place
things
to
make
LAUSDs
schools
successful.
As
of
February
6,
2014,
ITD
reported
that
the
timetable
for
upgrading
infrastructure
to
accommodate
one-to-one
devices
at
schools
was
on
track
so
that
all
941
schools
at
749
sites
would
be
one-to-one
device
ready
by
September
2015.
Network
Reliability
and
Technology
Support
Findings
There
have
been
some
questions
regarding
the
reliability
of
the
network
at
school
sites.
On
November
19,
2013,
several
External
Representatives
expressed
that
the
network
at
their
school
or
their
childrens
school
was
slow.
At
the
Committees
January
7,
2014,
meeting,
Mr.
Chandler
reported
an
estimated
network
up
time
of
97.88%
over
a
24
hour
day,
with
the
regular
school
day
being
a
little
higher.
In
response
to
a
public
speaker
who
had
suggested
the
Wi-Fi
was
unreliable
at
Fulton
College
Prep
during
an
earlier
meeting,
Mr.
Chandler
provided
some
data
to
support
his
conclusion
that,
if
there
were
widespread
wireless
problems,
then
no
one
had
told
ITD
about
it.
The
Committee
questioned
whether
schools
are
actually
being
encouraged
to
call-
in
when
the
network
slows
down,
or
are
just
practicing
resiliency
and
coping.
Mr.
Chandler
replied
that,
especially
given
the
new
importance
of
Wi-Fi
to
instruction,
teachers
should
be
reporting
any
problems
to
ITD
right
away.
He
also
stressed
that
63
there
are
things
ITD
can
do
to
fix
common
wireless
disruptions
quickly
and
often
without
even
having
to
send
a
technician
into
the
field.
Mr.
Chandler
suggested
that,
contrary
to
popular
belief,
when
a
school
experiences
a
network
slowdown,
it
is
often
not
due
to
lack
of
bandwidth.
Rather
the
wireless
network
needs
periodic
tuning
to
function
optimally.
In
response
to
concerns
that
LAUSDs
Help
Desk
response
times
are
already
slow,
and
the
CCTP
is
expected
to
increase
Help
Desk
demand
(especially
during
testing),
Mr.
Chandler
reported
that
LAUSDs
Support
Plan
included
hiring
more
people
and
aiming
to
be
open
for
24-hour
support.
On
March
5,
2014,
Mr.
Chandler
said
he
would
deliver
the
Testing
Support
Plan
to
the
Committee.33
For
technical
support
during
the
SBAC
Field
Test
in
Spring
2014,
LAUSD
was
going
to
provide
schools
with
a
reference
sheet,
and
ITD
was
going
to
give
schools
a
number
to
call
for
support
and
would
have
additional
equipment
available
in
case
of
emergency.
However,
PD
for
teachers
and
Technology
Coordinators
to
prepare
for
SBAC
testing
and
potential
problems
was
to
be
a
school-site
decision.
During
the
CCTP,
LAUSD
plans
to
engage
two
types
of
technology
support
personnel:
Virtual
Learning
Coordinators
(VLC)
and
Micro
Computer
Support
Associates
(MCSA).
The
VLCs
will
provide
support
just
for
iPads
and
other
devices
implemented
through
the
CCTP
and
only
for
a
limited
time
period
because
they
are
funded
from
bond
proceeds.
The
MCSAs,
on
the
other
hand
will
provide
the
ongoing
operational
support
for
LAUSDs
technology.
Recommendations
A
reliable
network
is
essential
for
instructional
and
operational
purposes.
There
are
things
ITD
can
do
to
fix
common
wireless
disruptions
quickly
and
often
without
even
having
to
send
a
technician
into
the
field.
LAUSD
should
communicate
forcefully
to
schools
and
school
staff
that
they
should
report
network
connectivity
problems
to
ITD
as
soon
as
they
arise.
LAUSD
should
ensuring
adequate
staffing
of
the
help
desk
to
handle
call
and
chat
volume.
LAUSD
should
also
explore
the
possibility
of
making
information
publicly
available
that
documents
the
number
and
nature
of
help
desk
requests
resolved
and
outstanding
per
ESC,
Board
District,
or
school
site
on
a
weekly,
biweekly,
or
monthly
basis.
It
was
very
informative
and
reassuring
for
the
Committee
to
learn
the
status
of
help
desk
requests
resolved
and
outstanding
for
Fulton
College
Prep.,
after
a
public
complaint
about
the
schools
network
reliability.
One-to-One
Technology
The
Committee
did
not
delve
deeply
into
the
question
of
whether
one-to-one
33 At the May 28, 2014 Committee meeting, the Chair noted that the Testing Support Plan request was
moot,
since
the
Field
Test
had
concluded,
and
data
would
eventually
be
available
on
the
actual
testing
supports
and
their
effectiveness.
64
technology
is
necessary
for
student
success
under
the
CCSS.
The
general
assumption
was
that
the
Board
and
LAUSD
are
committed
to
the
goal
of
one-to-one
technology.
Wi-Fi
Access
34 LAUSDs Technology Project Mythbusters, dated October 22, 2013. See materials from the October
65
While
these
changes
made
the
CCTP,
on
its
surface,
more
incremental
than
the
initial
timeline,
there
were
still
no
clear
metrics
for
gauging
success
or
firm
opportunities
to
correct
errors
from
one
Phase
to
the
next.
As
a
result,
in
part,
of
the
work
of
the
Committee,
the
Chair
sponsored
the
Student
Success
Through
an
Evaluation-Based
Common
Core
Technology
Project
resolution,
which
was
approved
at
the
November
12,
2013
Regular
Board
Meeting.
Such
resolution
called
for
LAUSD
to
engage
in
three
fundamental
activities
with
respect
to
the
CCTP:
(1)
slow
down;
(2)
evaluate;
and
(3)
learn
lessons
to
apply
to
any
future
Phases.35
It
would
also
appear
that
the
students
defeat
of
LAUSDs
MDM
program
and
ability
to
circumvent
LAUSDs
web-filtering
may
have
been
avoided
if
LAUSD
had
sufficient
time
prior
to
the
Phase
1
deployment
to
hire
experts
to
test
for
security
weaknesses.
After
the
MDM
defeat
occurred
and
a
more
robust
MDM
program
and
web-filtering
was
put
in
place,
LAUSD
hired
third-party
experts
to
try
to
circumvent
the
security
features.
Similarly,
the
Committee
learned
that
while
LAUSDs
CCTP
safety
plan
includes
notifying
local
pawn
shops
regarding
how
to
identify
and
report
LAUSD
property,
pawn
shops
were
not
notified
when
the
iPads
went
home
in
December
2013.
Though
the
lack
of
notification
to
pawn
shops
does
not
appear
to
have
had
a
negative
impact
during
the
initial
rollout,
all
aspects
of
the
CCTP
security
plan
may
have
been
able
to
be
in
place
prior
to
the
initial
rollout
with
lengthier
planning
and
execution
time.
More
importantly,
with
a
less
aggressive
timeline
for
deployment,
LAUSD
may
have
been
able
to
hire
security
experts
to
try
to
circumvent
the
security
features
prior
to
the
Phase
1
rollout.
35 For more detail on the Student Success Through an Evaluation-Based Common Core Technology
Project
resolution,
see
Background
a
Brief
History
of
the
CCTP,
supra.
The
text
of
the
resolution
itself
is
included
as
Appendix
A21
hereto.
66
At
the
April
24,
2014
Committee
meeting,
Ms.
Lucas
said
that,
for
Phases
2
and
1L,
devices
would
be
distributed
to
schools
upon
satisfaction
of
instructional
readiness,
rather
than
just
technical
readiness.
Although
the
revised
CCTP
Instructional
Readiness
Plan
and
revised
School
CCTP
Checklist
are
still
not
publicly
available
as
of
the
date
of
this
Report,
the
Chair
was
provided
with
embargoed
drafts
on
July
21,
2014.
Recommendations
Future
projects
of
this
size
and
cost
would
benefit
from
realistic
timelines
created
at
the
outset
and
continually
modified
appropriately
to
allow
for
thoughtful
planning,
execution,
evaluation,
and
modification
based
upon
lessons
learned.
LAUSD
should
make
sure
that
schools
are
ready
to
receive
and
responsibly
use
devices
before
distributing
them.
It
is
recommended
that
the
proposed
instructional
readiness
survey
be
thoughtfully
and
promptly
completed
in
a
way
that
will
assess
instructional
readiness,
and
that
LAUSD
include
a
minimum
completion
rate
of
an
Instructional
Readiness
Course
in
any
final
School
CCTP
Checklist.
The
Committee
also
recommends
that
LAUSD
strive
to
ensure
that
the
schools
participating
in
Phases
1L
and
2
are
prepared
in
a
way
that
includes
instructional
readiness
(and
to
document
that
through
a
survey
and
checklist)
prior
to
distributing
devices
to
students.
Finally,
it
is
recommended
that
the
Board
take
responsibility
to
approve
whatever
policy
is
ultimately
adopted
with
respect
to
conditions
to
allowing
devices
to
be
sent
home
with
students.
Ensuring
real
readiness
may
also
alleviate
some
of
the
informational
overload
issues
that
Dr.
Lim
reported
Phase
1
schools
faced
when
information
was
being
pushed
out
to
the
schools
all
at
once.
III.C.
Pricing
and
Price-Messaging
Findings
In
response
to
repeated
concerns
about
devices
apparently
being
cheaper
at
retail36,
the
CCTP
FAQ
explained
that
the
per-unit
cost
included
digital
curriculum,
security
features,
protective
covers
and
PD.
However,
the
FAQ
did
not
provide
any
comparable
pricing
for
these
added
features
(nor
did
it
mention
the
extended
warranty
also
included
in
the
per-unit
price).
At
the
Committee
meeting
on
November
19,
2013,
Mr.
Hill
addressed
questions
about
whether
LAUSD
obtained
a
reasonable
discount
on
its
Apple-Pearson
purchase.
Mr.
Hill
showed
a
slide
indicating
that
the
$768
per
seat
price
paid
by
LAUSD
included
the
following
extras
(along
with
their
a
la
carte
retail
pricing)
in
addition
to
the
32
gigabyte
iPad
4
with
Retina
display:
36 For example, see EDITORIAL: iFiasco in the Classroom, Washington Times, July 9, 2014.
67
PD ($20); and
Mr.
Hill
stated
that
the
total
estimated
retail
cost
would
be
between
$1,000-$1,200
for
the
product
bundle
procured
by
LAUSD.
This
is
information
that
would
tend
to
dispel
rumors
that
LAUSD
overpaid
under
the
Apple-Pearson
contract.37
Recommendations
LAUSD
must
be
more
vocal
and
transparent
in
order
to
get
credit
for
its
hard
work
and
good
results.
Because
LAUSD
did
not
initially
communicate
well
regarding
the
value
it
had
negotiated,
instead
of
tallying
a
win,
LAUSD
was
publicly
accused
of
paying
above
retail
for
technology.
In
striving
to
be
a
trusted
organization,
LAUSD
should
be
more
vocal
and
more
transparent
regarding
its
financial
decisions
in
order
to
promote
trust
that
LAUSD
is
a
good
steward
of
public
funds.
Ultimately,
there
needs
to
be
a
public
discussion
about
whether
it
makes
sense
to
limit
the
amount
that
LAUSD
will
pay
for
devices
or
look
for
cost
savings
at
the
various
grade
levels.
With
RFP
#1118,
LAUSD
sought
the
best
value
based
on
specifications
and
sought
the
same
device
for
every
student.
In
light
of
the
fact
that
LAUSD
never
has
enough
funding
for
all
it
seeks
to
accomplish,
it
may
benefit
LAUSD
to
seek
greater
flexibility
in
purchasing
devices.
SRLDP
students,
kindergarten
students,
elementary
school
students,
middle
school
students,
and
high
school
students
all
need
access
to
technology.
The
question
remains
whether
LAUSD
should
pay
the
same
amount
per
device
per
student
or
seek
cost
savings.
Perhaps
different
grade
levels
could
be
provided
with
different
devices
with
an
eye
to
saving
money
appropriately
while
still
meeting
student
needs.
37
An
External
Representative
noted
that
the
per-seat
price
initially
presented
to
the
BOC
and
BOE
did
not
include
tax,
which
may
have
may
have
lead
to
further
criticism
of
LAUSD
by
the
media
relating
to
opacity
of
project
costs.
Furthermore,
LAUSDs
plan
involved
purchasing
iPad
carts
($2,300
each)
and
keyboards
($22
each)
in
addition
to
the
student
device
bundles
described
above.
68
Notably,
the
opinion
stated
that
certain
software
for
information
technology
applications
may
be
financed
with
bond
proceeds,
but
warned
that
portions
of
the
costs
of
acquiring,
developing
and
implementing
a
software
project
often
include
both
working
capital
items
and
capital
items,
only
the
latter
of
which
may
be
financed
with
bond
proceeds.
Finally,
the
opinion
warned
of
certain
adverse
federal
income
tax
results
that
could
arise
under
certain
circumstances,
including
if
the
weighted
average
maturity
of
an
issue
of
tax-exempt
bonds
were
to
exceed
120%
of
the
average
reasonably
expected
economic
life
of
the
property
financed
by
the
issue.38
A
legal
opinion
reaches
legal
conclusions,
based
on
a
given
set
of
facts
and
assumptions.
To
the
extent
the
facts
deviated
from
the
assumptions
on
which
bond
counsels
opinion
was
based,
a
different
legal
conclusion
may
or
may
not
have
been
required.
Concerns
were
brought
up
at
the
Committee
and
in
the
media
regarding
the
use
of
bond
funds
to
fund
CCTP,
including
fears
expressed
by
some
that
facility
repairs
would
be
underfunded
due
to
bond
funds
being
devoted
to
CCTP.
LAUSD
staff
38
On
August
5,
2014,
LAUSD
sold
$135.8
million
of
General
Obligation
Bonds
having
a
three-year
term
to
match
the
expected
useful
lives
of
the
devices
and
content
purchased
with
the
proceeds.
The
market
conditions
resulted
in
an
all-in
true
interest
cost
of
only
0.90%
on
these
new
bonds.
The
Committee
commends
LAUSD
for
coordinating
maturity
with
useful
life
and
for
obtaining
favorable
terms
on
this
bond
issue.
69
reassured
the
Committee
several
times
that
bond
funds
could
be
used
for
significant
portions
of
the
CCTP.
The
Committee
was
not
presented
with
evidence
that
the
devices
either
are
or
are
not
booked
as
capital
assets
in
compliance
with
generally
accepted
accounting
principles
applied
in
accordance
with
the
California
School
Accounting
Manual.
Nor
did
the
Committee
review
which
software
components
of
the
CCTP
do
or
do
not
fit
into
the
categories
of
bond-financeable
purchases.
These
questions
seem
a
bit
afield
from
the
Committees
core
mission
and
more
appropriately
fall
on
the
BOC.39
As
for
the
long-term
funding
plans,
the
CCTP
FAQ
stated
that
the
Bond
funds
would
be
used
for
the
initial
transformation,
but
that
LAUSD
would
sustain
the
use
in
future
years
the
same
way
it
has
historically
paid
for
textbooks.
Moreover,
Mr.
Loera
told
the
Committee
that
the
ongoing
technology
expenditures
could
be
offset
by
potential
cost
savings
from
reduced
or
eliminated
textbook
and
paperwork
expenses.
It
was
asked
how
the
projected
replacement
costs
compared
to
LAUSDs
experience
with
spending
on
textbooks.
Mr.
Loera
stated
that
LAUSD
was
spending
about
$25-30
million
per
year
to
maintain
and
replace
textbooks,
and
that
LAUSD
held
a
textbook
inventory
of
approximately
$300
million.
The
Committee
requested
that
Mr.
Loera
return
with
more
detailed
information
regarding
projected
iPad
obsolescence
and
replacement
plans,
and
LAUSDs
current
textbook,
calculator
and
other
expenses
which
would
be
made
unnecessary
by
the
devices.40
Mr.
Hill
told
the
Committee
that,
while
he
could
not
know
exactly,
based
on
his
review
of
the
market,
prices
for
electronic
curriculum
were
running
about
$25
to
$50
per
subject
per
year.
He
said
that
LAUSD
planned
to
do
an
RFP
for
content
licenses
to
use
after
the
Pearson
license
expires,
and
that
he
believed
that
the
cost
would
likely
decrease
over
time.
Mr.
Hill
also
reported
that
textbook
expenses
have
averaged
$60
million
a
year.41
The
Committee
noted
that
even
at
the
low
end
of
Mr.
39
The
BOC
Information
Technology
Task
Force
Report,
dated
November
18,
2013
(the
BOC
TF
Report),
included
a
recommendation
that
LAUSD
obtain
a
comprehensive
reasoned
opinion
from
independent
bond
counsel
confirming
the
propriety
of
using
bond
funds,
not
only
for
mobile
learning
devices
and
educational
software
for
CCTP
purposes,
but
also
for
the
cost
of
replacing
these
items
in
later
years.
The
BOC
TF
Report
went
on
to
recommend
that,
alternatively,
LAUSD
should
seek
a
Revenue
Ruling
from
the
Internal
Revenue
Service
regarding
federal
tax
law
aspects
of
using
bond
proceeds
to
fund
CCTP-related
expenses.
See
the
BOC
TF
Report
included
as
Appendix
A24
hereto.
40
One
of
the
slides
Mr.
Loera
presented
to
the
September
25,
2014
Committee
Meeting
showed
a
Project
RED
finding
that
68%
of
one-to-one
schools
showed
a
decrease
in
paper
and
copy
machine
expenses
(of
unknown
magnitude),
and
88%
showed
some
improvement
in
paperwork
reduction.
See
materials
from
the
September
25,
2014
Committee
Meeting
included
in
Appendix
A17
hereto.
41
While
this
is
more
than
Mr.
Loeras
$25-30
million
estimate,
it
is
still
substantially
less
than
the
expense
of
sustaining
device
and
digital
curricula
purchases.
Even
at
the
mid-point
of
the
prices
estimated
in
CCTPs
5-Year
Plan
presented
at
the
November
12,
2013
BOE
meeting
and
November
20,
2013
BOC
meeting
(i.e.
$200
to
$400
per
seat
for
devices,
excluding
instructional
content),
replacing
devices
alone
on
a
three-year
cycle
will
cost
LAUSD
as
much
as
it
is
currently
spending
on
textbooks
($300
multiplied
by
650,000
seats
divided
by
three
years
equals
$65
million
per
year).
70
Hills
estimate,
$25
per
year
is
more
than
$75
for
a
textbook
that
lasts
seven
years.
Mr.
Hill
remarked
that
$25
to
$50
is
the
retail
market
rate
and
expressed
optimism
that
LAUSD
would
be
able
to
command
a
substantial
volume
discount,
like
it
did
on
the
iPads42.
It
appears
that
any
textbook
savings
would
need
to
be
supplemented
to
replenish
devices,
purchase
any
necessary
software
licenses,
and
purchase
any
textbooks
that
may
still
be
necessary.
Furthermore,
LAUSD
must
also
pay
for
the
additional
technology
and
instructional
supports
and
other
CCTP-related
software
necessary
to
maintain
the
program
in
future
years.
Recommendations
When
funding
projects
in
a
manner
that
invites
significant
public
scrutiny,
LAUSD
should
pursue
transparency
by
quickly
publicize
and
release
reasoning
and
documentation.
There
is
little
benefit
to
holding
back
information
that
explains
and
documents
to
the
public
why
LAUSD
staff
believes
that
certain
projects
can
be
funded
via
certain
funding
sources.
LAUSD
should
plan
now
for
funding
the
CCTP
after
the
devices
and
licenses
purchased
with
bond
proceeds
become
obsolete
or
expire.
As
much
as
feasible
in
light
of
the
changing
costs
of
technology
and
the
uncertainty
regarding
which
devices
will
be
used
in
a
district-wide
one-to-one
endeavor,
LAUSD
should
be
transparent
about
how
much
General
Fund
money
may
be
needed
to
replenish
devices
and
from
where
it
will
come.
The
CCTP
FAQ
stated
that
the
bond
funds
would
be
used
for
the
initial
transformation,
but
that
LAUSD
would
sustain
the
use
of
devices
and
curriculum
in
future
years
the
same
way
it
has
historically
paid
for
textbooks.
Unfortunately,
at
least
at
current
and
expected
prices,
the
cost
of
devices
and
digital
curricula
is
substantially
greater
than
LAUSDs
historical
textbook
expenditures.
LAUSD
should
confront
this
funding
dilemma
directly,
promptly,
and
transparently.
III.E.
Device
and
Curriculum
Selection
Choice
of
One-Device-Fits-All
At
the
end
of
the
RFP
#1118
process,
LAUSD
chose
to
contract
for
iPad
4s
with
Retina
display.
Pearson
was
the
curriculum
subcontractor.
At
the
same
time,
Add
to
that
digital
content
license
fees
per
year,
per
student,
per
class,
and
the
aggregate
expense
would
be
roughly
double.
But
the
expenses
of
CCTP
do
not
end
there.
In
addition,
such
5-Year
Plan
projected
that,
starting
in
the
2016-17
school
year,
LAUSD
would
need
to
spend
out
of
its
general
funds,
an
average
of:
$2-4
million
per
year
on
a
Learning
Management
System;
$28.4
million
on
VLC
facilitators
and
MCSAs
(plus
a
very
conservative
$0.6
million
on
additional
School
Police);
$7.8
million
per
year
on
non-school-based
instructional
support
and
IT
support;
and
$10.4
to
$11.7
million
per
year
on
MDM
and
web-filtering
software.
42
However,
given
the
substantial
up
front
expenditures
on
PD
and
teachers
having
worked
with
the
Pearson
curriculum
for
three-years,
LAUSD
may
have
substantial
barriers
to
replacing
the
then-
legacy
Pearson
curriculum.
71
LAUSD
already
had
a
number
of
traditional
public
schools
and
public
charters
that
were
using
a
variety
of
devices,
including
laptops,
Chromebooks,
iPads,
and
others.
The
Committee
has
seen
no
evidence
that
any
analysis
was
done
prior
to
the
RFP
to
determine
which
type(s)
of
device(s)
may
be
the
best
fit
at
the
various
grade
levels.
The
scoring
committee
only
reviewed
tablet
devices,
which
had
multi-touch
display
capable
of
operating
with
a
stylus
per
the
RFP
requirements,
when
determining
the
device
for
the
CCTPs
one-to-one
implementation.
Students
and
teachers
only
reviewed
the
Apple
and
HP
Elite
tablet
devices
as
a
non-scoring
part
of
the
RFP
process.
LAUSD
staff
stated
that
there
was
a
desire
to
limit
the
CCTP
to
one
device
in
the
beginning
but,
eventually,
to
prepare
for
a
multi-device
and/or
bring-your-
own-device
environment
in
the
future.
While
LAUSDs
choice
to
seek
a
single
device
was
not
unreasonable
in
light
of
the
assumed
constraints
(an
extremely
compressed
timeline
to
prepare
students
for
the
SBAC
Field
Test
and
the
goal
of
providing
every
LAUSD
student
with
one-to-one
technology
as
quickly
as
possible),
LAUSDs
student
body
is
far
from
homogenous,
and
its
technology
needs
vary
from
one
grade
level
or
school
type
to
another
and
from
one
activity
to
another.43
No
evidence
was
offered
that
tablets
or
iPads
are
the
best
device
to
meet
the
needs
of
all
LAUSDs
students.
Some
anecdotal
evidence
was
offered
that
older
students
and
teachers
of
older
students
thought
iPads
were
great
for
younger
students
but
that
the
productivity
software
available
with
laptops
was
much
more
useful
for
older
students.
Anecdotal
evidence
was
also
offered
that
some
schools
and
students
had
reported
preferring
desktop
computers
for
the
SBAC
Assessments
and
mobile
devices
for
classroom
instruction.
LAUSD
issued
RFP
#14034:
Laptop
Devices
for
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project
on
February
10,
2014
and
RFP
#14047
to
support
Phase
1L.
Phase
1L
will
allow
an
assortment
of
high
schools
to
use
their
choice
of
device
within
the
confines
of
RFP
#14034
and
RFP
#14047.
The
choice
of
one
device
for
the
entire
student
body
also
led
to
public
and
Committee
concerns
that,
throughout
the
deployment,
newer
versions
of
the
device
would
be
available
and
students
would
end
up
working
on
devices
that
were
quickly
obsolete.
The
Committee
hoped
that
a
solution
could
be
found
to
this
dilemma
but
was
told
that
LAUSD
contracted
for
the
specific
version,
the
price
offered
was
for
the
specific
version,
and
LAUSD
would
have
to
negotiate
for
newer
versions
if
newer
versions
were
desired.
LAUSD
staff
also
mentioned
that
there
was
a
desire
to
have
one
device
for
consistency.
Recommendations
Rather
than
assume
that
a
one-device-fits-all
approach
to
student
technology
will
yield
optimal
results,
LAUSD
should
work
with
individual
schools
to
provide
best
value
solutions
to
their
actual
technology
needs.
School
choice
is
key,
as
parents,
43 An External Representative noted that there may be important perceptions among students
regarding
a
certain
devices
status
as
a
toy,
on
the
one
hand,
or
a
work
tool,
on
the
other.
See,
Why
Some
Schools
Are
Selling
All
Their
iPads,
Meghan
E.
Murphy,
The
Atlantic,
August
5,
2014
72
teachers,
and
principals
can
all
offer
useful
input
on
matching
the
tools
a
school
offers
with
the
developmental
levels
and
educational
needs
of
its
students44.
Finally,
different
devices
and
device
distributions
may
be
better
suited
to
different
activities.
For
example,
a
school
may
find
that
one-to-one
mobile
devices
are
best
for
its
classroom
instruction,
but
that
shared
desktop
devices
work
better
for
testing.45
LAUSD
missed
an
opportunity
to
evaluate
the
use
of
different
devices
at
its
schools
before
embarking
on
the
CCTP.
It
is
imperative
that
LAUSD
conduct
insightful
and
timely
evaluations
of
the
technology
options
it
has
deployed
in
Phases
1,
2
and
1L,
in
order
to
inform
school
technology
choices
for
any
future
Phases.
Certain
schools
within
LAUSD
may
be
ready
to
pilot
a
partial
or
complete
bring-
your-own-device
environment
now
or
in
the
near
future.
LAUSD
should
take
advantage
of
such
a
learning
opportunity.
Request
for
Proposal
(RFP)
Requirements
Findings
There
were
a
number
of
bidder
qualifications
included
in
RFP
#1118,
including:
Any
Proposer
not
capable
of
performing
the
contract
cannot,
by
definition,
become
a
responsible
bidder.
It
is
unclear
what
LAUSDs
objective
was
in
including
additional
minimum
bidder
quality
requirements,
as
opposed
to
simply
including
them
in
the
scoring
rubric.
LAUSDs
specifications
for
RFP
#1118
deviated
from
the
published
Hardware
Purchasing
Guidelines
of
SBAC
in
requiring
that
screens
have
a
10-inch
multi-touch
display
capable
of
operating
with
a
stylus.
Mr.
Chandler
told
the
Committee
that
the
multi-touch
display
specification
would
not,
in
and
of
itself,
have
ruled
out
all
laptops
and
netbooks.
However,
no
netbook
or
laptop
with
those
capabilities,
in
fact,
proposed.
Without
any
evidence
that
the
screen
requirement
was
chosen
in
order
to
fulfill
a
reasonably
perceived
need
of
LAUSD,
LAUSD
risked
creating
an
appearance
that
such
specification
may
have
been
included
for
an
improper
anti-
44
In
this
regard,
an
External
Representative
suggested
that
special
considerations
should
be
made
for
elementary
schools
that
include
a
SRLDP
or
are
in
close
proximity
to
an
Early
Education
Center
(EEC).
45
An
External
Representative
suggested
that
giving
schools
choices
would
also
increase
buy-in,
which
the
Committee
had
learned
was
considered
an
important
factor
in
determining
the
success
of
CCTP
implementation.
73
46 Curiously, of the three finalists invited to submit a BAFO, the one that had initially scored the
highest
(Arey
Jones
B,
featuring
a
Dell
Latitude
10
tablet
and
Pearson
curriculum)
never
had
its
BAFO
scored.
74
Recommendations
LAUSD
should
be
vigilant
that
its
procurement
process
is
as
open,
fair,
and
evidence-based
as
possible.
LAUSD
staff,
prospective
vendors
and
the
public
should
have
the
opportunity
to
question
whether
any
aspect
of
an
RFP
is
well
designed
to
identify
the
proposal
or
proposals
best
aligned
with
LAUSDs
real
interests.
LAUSD
should
generally
let
the
scoring
system
score
proposals,
and
only
establish
as
minimum
requirements
those
that
are
actually
minimally
acceptable.
Otherwise,
the
minimum
requirements
could
appear
in
retrospect
to
have
been
designed
to
force
a
certain
result.
Best
value
cannot
be
considered
in
a
vacuum,
but
rather
depends
on
the
actual
needs
of
the
consumer.
LAUSD
should
be
careful
to
avoid
including
provisions
in
RFPs
that
could
appear
to
be
devices
to
manipulate
the
outcome
and
do
not
appear
to
tightly
adhere
to
the
needs
for
which
it
is
procuring.
Extraneous
minimum
requirements
in
an
RFP
can
discourage
potential
proposers
who
might
have
best-
value
solutions
for
LAUSD
from
proposing.
Such
requirements
could
appear
to
be
designed
to
defeat
the
competitive
nature
of
the
procurement
process
by
favoring
a
particular
vendor
or
product
that
is
not
the
best-value
for
LAUSD.
A
better
approach
may
be
to
include
as
minimum
requirements
only
those
specifications
deemed
vital
to
fundamental
functionality.
Features
that
are
not
essential,
but
might
be
preferred,
may
be
better
accounted
for
by
the
scoring
rubric,
rather
than
added
as
additional
minimum
requirements.
In
procurement,
whenever
LAUSD
determines
to
change
any
material
provision
of
a
RFP,
it
ought
to
clearly
communicate
such
change
to
vendors
and
afford
a
reasonable
opportunity
for
all
potential
proposers
to
react
to
such
change.
Otherwise,
such
changes
can
make
the
bidding
process
appear
arbitrary
or
predetermined.
LAUSD
should
consider
requiring
some
formal
review
of
RFPs
over
a
certain
dollar
threshold.
Choice
of
Scoring
Rubric
Findings
Among
other
things,
RFP
#1118
provided
that
optional
items
would
be
scored
as
a
tie-breaker.
This
would
not,
in
and
of
itself,
have
been
objectionable;
provided
that
Proposers
were
advised
of
this.
However,
the
optional
items
begin
to
take
on
a
different
status
if
the
scoring
system
were
such
as
would
virtually
ensure
a
tie.
Since
the
optional
items
were
presumably
not
what
LAUSD
was
primarily
looking
for,
they
could
appear
to
favor
certain
bidders
over
others
in
ways
that
do
not
advance
the
interests
of
LAUSD.
75
It
would
appear
that
there
was
little
realistic
chance
of
not
having
a
tie
under
the
original
scoring
rubric,
given
that
market
prices
would
likely
be
competitive,
proposer
experience
was
mandated
and
warranty,
training
and
delivery
schedules
were
more
or
less
prescribed
in
the
RFP.
Eliminating
those
items
would
leave
only
39%
of
the
score
on
which
to
really
differentiate,
and
a
tie
was
defined
as
final
scores
within
10
points
of
each
other.
While
it
is
unclear
whether
this
concern
over
lack
of
meaningful
differentiation
was
recognized,
the
March
20,
2013
Addendum
to
RFP
#1118
revised
the
scoring
rubric
to
delete
the
pricing
item
(initially
worth
30%
of
the
total
score)
and
to
increase
the
weight
of
the
specifications
of
work
from
60%
to
90%.
Even
so,
a
10-point
spread
is
arguably
rather
extensive
for
a
tie,
and,
in
fact,
the
top
five
Proposers
original
scores
were
all
within
10
points
of
each
other
(66.0
to
74.6).
Nonetheless,
the
fourth
and
fifth
highest
scoring
proposals
which
were
theoretically
tied
with
the
leaders
were
not
invited
to
submit
their
BAFOs.
Recommendation
In
procurement,
the
scoring
rubric
should
be
clearly
and
reasonably
related
to
LAUSDs
actual
needs.
Whenever
LAUSD
determines
to
change
its
scoring
mechanism
(or
any
other
material
provision
of
a
RFP),
it
ought
to
communicate
such
change
transparently
to
vendors
and
afford
a
reasonable
opportunity
for
all
potential
proposers
to
react
to
such
change.
Justification(s)
for
changes
in
the
scoring
rubrics
should
also
be
publicly
transparent
to
promote
trust.
Bundling
Curriculum
and
Device
Findings
It
was
asked
why
Apple
was
allowed
to
make
the
curricular
choice
and
not
LAUSDs
instructional
staff.
The
concern
expressed
by
this
question
is
real
that
LAUSD
gave
up
a
measure
of
control
by
bundling
Grade
K-12
ELA
and
Grade
K-8
Math
curricula
together
with
devices
in
one
RFP.
The
requirement
of
RFP
#1118
that
proposals
must
be
fully
inclusive
of
the
entire
scope
of
work,
and
that
LAUSD
would
not
accept
partial
proposals,
may
have
acted
to
further
limit
the
field
of
potential
bidders.
Such
requirements,
in
the
aggregate,
ceded
LAUSDs
ability
to
select
the
various
hardware
and
curricular
components
a
la
carte
to
the
limited
universe
of
Proposers
with
the
size
and
industry
presence
to
meet
the
substantial
minimum
qualifications.
On
the
other
hand,
LAUSD
may
have
had
good
reason
to
seek
an
integrated
device
and
content
package.
Rather
than
ceding
control,
this
bundling
could
also
be
seen
as
recruiting
third
party
proposers
to
do
LAUSDs
initial
research
and
integration
leg-
work
for
it.
Among
other
things,
it
forecloses
the
ability
of
LAUSDs
contract
counter-parties
from
each
claiming
the
other
is
at
fault
for
any
problems
of
compatibility
that
might
arise.
In
any
event,
LAUSD
had
a
number
of
competing
interests
with
respect
to
the
decision
whether
to
bundle
or
choose
components
piece-meal.
While
it
may
be
tempting
to
criticize
the
bundling
decision
in
hindsight
as
having
been
an
obstacle
for
valuable
educational
technologies
owned
by
less
dominant
market
participants,
the
choice
was
not
entirely
unreasonable.
76
Recommendations
Because
of
the
impact
that
LAUSD
purchases
have
on
students
and
school
sites
and
the
use
of
public
funds
to
make
those
purchases,
the
reasoning
behind
the
purchasing
decision(s)
should
be
available
for
clear
articulation
to
the
public.
LAUSD
must
be
willing
to
be
transparent
and
highly
vocal
about
the
reasoning
behind
significant
purchases.
Going
forward,
LAUSD
would
be
well
served
to
publicly
address
the
issue
of
curricula
uniformity
versus
school
choice
of
curricula.
Although
devices
and
curricula
were
bundled
together
in
the
CCTP-related
RFPs,
it
was
encouraging
that
LAUSD
included
a
requirement
that
the
curricula
be
compatible
with
multiple
platforms.
LAUSD
should
be
careful
not
to
unreasonably
limit
its
future
technology
options
by
the
decisions
it
makes
now.
Three
years
after
purchase,
the
initial
CCTP
technology
will
be
LAUSDs
legacy
system.
LAUSD
should
seek
to
have
as
few
barriers
as
possible
to
changing
platforms
and/or
software,
in
the
event
that
better
options
are
available
at
that
time,
which
is
highly
likely,
given
the
rapid
rate
of
change
in
technology.
Conflicts
of
Interest
Findings
At
the
Committees
February
6,
2014
meeting,
LAUSDs
Ethics
Officer,
Ms.
Vargas,
presented
the
Committee
with
an
overview
of
LAUSDs
ethics
system.
Ms.
Vargas
described
LAUSDs
goal
regarding
ethics
as
promoting
LAUSDs
status
as
a
trusted
organization.
She
said
the
guiding
principles
of
this
effort
were
having
an
open
playing
field,
transparency
and
fairness.
The
Committee
learned
that
the
Ethics
Office
staff
had
been
cut
from
six
to
two
personnel
and
with
a
larger
staff
could
be
involved
in
more
LAUSD
decisions.
Although
Dr.
Deasy
recused
himself
from
consideration
of
the
procurement,
concerns
have
been
raised
in
the
press47
that
his
interests
in
Apple48
may
have
nonetheless
influenced
LAUSDs
choice
of
device
for
CCTP.
Furthermore,
LAUSDs
Deputy
Superintendent
at
the
time
of
the
procurement
that
resulted
in
the
Apple-
Pearson
contract,
Dr.
Jaime
Aquino,
was
a
former
employee
of
Americas
Choice,
an
education
research
company
acquired
by
Pearson
in
2010.49
In
response
to
the
Committees
questions
regarding
the
selection
process,
Mr.
Tucker
stated
that
Dr.
Aquino
had
no
influence
in
choosing
Pearson.
Mr.
Tucker
also
47
For
example,
see
Dianne
Ravitchs
blog
from
October
21,
2013.
48
In
addition
to
Dr.
Deasys
ownership
of
Apple
stock,
he
was
featured
in
an
Apple
commercial
presented
in
January
2012
in
which
he
said
we
had
decided
to
adopt
iPad
technology,
as
we
were
trying
to
provide
ways
for
increasing
student
engagement.
See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP8yTsQLK_w
49
See
iPads
on
the
Way
for
Education
Overhaul,
Barbara
Jones,
Los
Angeles
Daily
News,
July
19,
2013.
77
stated
that
the
selection
panels
scored
Apple
the
highest,
and
that
the
Executive
Committee
(of
which
Dr.
Aquino
was
a
member)
just
approved
to
move
from
one
step
to
the
next
and
never
had
anything
rescored
or
changed.
Mr.
Tucker
advised
the
Committee
that,
for
the
Phase
1L
procurement,
LAUSD
would
have
zero-tolerance
for
reviewers
having
any
shareholdings
or
interests
in
vendors
or
subcontractors.
Of
course,
this
begged
the
question
of
whether
any
shareholders
were
on
the
review
committee
for
RFP
#1118,
which
resulted
in
the
Apple-Pearson
contract.
Without
answering
the
question,
Mr.
Tucker
stated
that
the
rules
allow
de
minimus
share
ownership
and
other
interests,
but
that
LAUSD
was
instead
going
to
use
zero-tolerance
for
the
Phase
1L
RFP.
The
Committee
also
explored
potential
conflicts
related
to
gifts
from
Apple
or
Pearson
to
LAUSD
decision-makers.
Mr.
Hovatter
reported
to
the
Committee
that
some
LAUSD
staff
received
devices
from
Apple
at
a
Pearson-sponsored
conference
they
attended
(along
with
all
other
attendees),
but
that
this
occurred
prior
to
RFP
#1118
and
that
any
devices
they
received
would
have
been
LAUSDs,
rather
than
the
recipients
personal,
property.
Whether
or
not
any
such
gift
gave
rise
to
an
actual
conflict
of
interest,50
it
potentially
created
the
appearance
of
a
conflict51,
which
did
not
further
LAUSDs
objective
of
being
a
trusted
organization.
Mr.
Hovatter
stressed
that
LAUSD
was
seeking
to
avoid
even
these
appearances
of
conflict
for
the
Phase
1L
procurement.
At
the
January
7,
2014
Committee
Meeting,
Mr.
Hovatter
stated
that
LAUSDs
Office
of
Inspector
General
was
conducting
a
review
related
to
the
Apple-Pearson
procurement.
The
Inspector
Generals
report
was
mentioned
in
a
newspaper
article.
52
Although
the
conclusion
stated
in
the
newspaper
article
was
that
criminal
charges
would
not
be
filed,
the
article
stated
that
LAUSDs
Office
of
Inspector
Generals
report
made
the
following
allegations
which
are
concerning
both
in
their
description,
and
in
LAUSDs
failure
to
address
them
to
the
Committee
or
the
public
in
general:
Pearson
had
gotten
into
trouble
for
allegedly
using
its
charitable
foundation
to
generate
business
for
its
for-profit
wing,
ultimately
settling
with
the
New
50
And,
arguably,
it
would
have
been
a
functional
conflict
of
interest,
if
the
recipient
wrongfully
78
First,
the
interested
party
must
fully
disclose
his
or
her
interest
to
the
other
decision
makers;
and
personnel
from
attending
conferences
or
activities
where
third
parties,
who
may
be
LAUSD
vendors
or
their
affiliates,
are
sponsoring
any
portion.
To
the
extent
LAUSD
believes
staff
participation
in
any
such
activity
would
be
beneficial
to
LAUSD,
it
could
deploy
its
own
funds
to
avoid
any
appearance
of
undue
influence.
79
Findings
The
Committee
heard
somewhat
inconsistent
testimony
regarding
the
completeness
of
the
Pearson
curriculum.
At
the
October
22,
2013,
Committee
meeting,
the
Chair
requested
that
Mr.
Loera
come
to
the
next
meeting
prepared
to
answer
how
much
curriculum
Pearson
has
delivered
and
when
it
would
deliver
the
rest,
with
references
to
any
controlling
language
in
the
contract.
At
the
January
7,
2014
Committee
meeting,
Mr.
Loera
stated
that,
while
the
full
curriculum
was
complete,
LAUSD
was
only
allowed
to
access
it
digitally
according
to
the
timeline
set
forth
in
the
contract.
When
the
Pearson
curriculum
demonstration
was
finally
given
on
March
19,
2014
the
digital
curriculum
was
still
far
from
complete,
and
that
was
after
nearly
a
full
year
of
additional
development
from
when
it
was
included
in
proposals
responding
to
RFP
#1118.
The
Committee
repeatedly
asked
to
see
what
the
review
panel
would
have
seen
of
Pearsons
curriculum
when
scoring
it
and
how
complete
the
digital
curriculum
was
at
the
time
it
was
scored.
At
the
January
7,
2013
Committee
meeting,
Mr.
Tucker
offered
to
provide
the
Committee
with
the
actual
score
sheets
that
were
used,
with
comments
on
the
side,
but
said
the
demonstration
devices,
themselves,
had
been
returned.
At
the
same
meeting,
Mr.
Tucker
confirmed
that,
although
review
committee
members
would
have
also
read
the
proposers
written
response
to
the
RFP,
the
review
committee
actually
scored
only
what
was
loaded
on
the
demonstration
devices.
In
response
to
questions
about
Pearsons
curriculum
being
incomplete,
Procurement
noted
that
RFP
#1118
was
issued
in
March
2013,
at
a
time
when
no
vendor
would
have
been
able
to
provide
a
full
curriculum.
The
lack
of
availability
of
certain
publishers
criteria
was
made
more
acute
by
LAUSDs
requirement
that
content
be
originally
designed
with
the
CCSS
as
its
basis,
rather
than
re-aligned.
It
would
indeed
have
been
difficult
to
look
at
a
paper
version
of
a
curriculum
and
decide
what
has
the
most
promise
in
digital
form,
and
even
more
difficult
if
the
reviewers
only
reviewed
a
non-existent
digital
version
and
did
not
have
access
to
any
paper
version.
The
Committee
heard
public
comment
from
David
Tokofsky,
AALA
Strategist
and
former
LAUSD
Boardmember,
who
spoke
at
the
January
7,
2014
Committee
meeting.
Mr.
Tokofsky
alleged
that
Pearsons
Math
curriculum
included
Envision
Math,
redesigned
or
re-purposed
in
violation
of
RFP
#1118.
He
also
stated
that
Pearsons
ELA
curriculum
was
aligned
to
the
national
Common
Core
market
and
not
to
Californias
standards,
noting
that
the
American
Revolution
was
embedded
in
Pearsons
Grade
11
ELA
materials
even
though
California
had
moved
it
to
the
Grade
8
curriculum.
Mr.
Tokofsky
further
alleged
that
Pearsons
Math
Curriculum
was
really
just
a
digitized
textbook,
which
was
what
Instruction
had
said
LAUSD
did
not
want.
Given
that
these
were
relatively
specific
concerns
addressing
some
80
Findings
On
March
19,
2014,
Pearson
gave
a
closed-door
presentation
to
various
Board
offices
and
their
invited
guests,
which
included
a
number
of
External
Representatives,
in
the
LAUSD
Board
Room.
The
discussion
was
moderated,
ostensibly
in
order
to
avoid
cone
of
silence
infractions
under
RFP
#14034,
which
had
been
issued
on
March
1,
2014.
Because
of
the
moderation,
there
was
no
way
for
the
audience
to
be
certain
that
questions
were
not,
in
fact,
being
filtered
on
some
other
basis.
The
presentation
revealed
that
there
were
numerous
lessons
and
even
entire
units
missing
across
every
grade
level.
What
the
Committee
reviewed
of
the
winning
curriculum
(even
after
nearly
a
year
of
additional
development)
did
not
appear
to
satisfy
LAUSDs
stated
minimum
requirements.
Despite
RFP
#1118s
requirement
that
the
content
be
delivered
dynamically
and
not
just
a
digitized
textbook,
much
of
the
material
demonstrated
at
the
March
19,
2014,
Pearson
curriculum
presentation
was
actually
not
made
possible
by
the
technology
and
at
best
may
have
had
some
enhanced
delivery.
The
curriculum
was
structured
in
a
purely
chapter/sub-chapter
linear
progression.
A
Pearson
representative
stated
that
their
program
replaces
the
textbook.
However,
there
was
no
indication
that
it
was
highly
interactive,
computer
adaptive
and
fully
digital.
In
RFP
#1118,
LAUSD
required
that
the
curriculum
be
delivered
digitally
and
dynamically.
While
no
one
is
disagreeing
that
digital
and
dynamic
curriculum
may
be
engaging
and
possibly
beneficial
for
students,
it
has
not
been
proven
to
the
Committee
that
digital
and
dynamically
delivered
curriculum
is
a
requirement
for
81
student
success
with
the
CCSS
or
that
the
Pearson
curriculum
met
that
requirement55.
Recommendations
LAUSD
should
provide
clear
evidence
that
digital
and
dynamic
curriculum
really
is
immediately
necessary
for
students
to
succeed
with
the
CCSS.
LAUSD
should
provide
clear
evidence
that
the
Pearson
curriculum
meets
the
digital
and
dynamic
requirement
in
light
of
questions
that
have
arisen
and
remain
about
the
curriculum.
No
Repurposed
or
Realigned
Content
Findings
Another
procurement
requirement
for
RFP
#1118
that
resulted
in
the
Apple-
Pearson
contract
was
that
the
content
be
built
from
the
ground
up
and
not
repurposed.
However,
during
the
March
19,
2014
presentation,
the
first
sample
lesson
presented
(known
as
the
locker
problem)
was,
as
introduced
by
a
Pearson
representative,
a
classic
problem.
In
fact,
that
problem
was
structured
exactly
as
it
would
have
been
in
a
technology-free
mathematics
curriculum,
and
relied
on
students
using
non-device
resources.
A
Pearson
representative
said
that
their
content
had
replaced
the
textbook,
not
the
teacher.
However,
the
only
thing
particularly
technological
about
the
Pearson
version
of
the
locker
problem
was
that
it
was
introduced
by
a
video
clip
rather
than
a
teacher.
Pearson
claimed
that
theirs
was
the
first
system
that
integrated
instruction,
curriculum
and
assessment.
However,
a
certificated
instructor
in
the
audience
noted
that
he
had
been
receiving
similarly
integrated
materials
from
publishers
for
a
long
time.
During
a
Committee
meeting,
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
what
evidence
existed
that
repurposed
curriculum
was
not
effective.
Mr.
Loera
replied
that
there
must
be
a
deep
alignment
in
order
to
provide
equity
and
access
to
high-level
rigorous
curriculum
and
content.
The
Committee
also
asked
how
LAUSD
would
know
whether
curricula
were
repurposed
or
not.
Mr.
Loera
said
that
achievethecore.org
provided
tools
for
evaluating
alignment
of
materials
with
the
CCSS,
and
that
LAUSD
also
looked
for
stray
references
to
old
standards,
which
would
disqualify
a
proposed
curriculum.
By
requiring
that
curriculum
not
be
repurposed
or
realigned,
LAUSD
was
essentially
limiting
the
number
of
curriculum
vendors
that
could
compete
in
the
RFP.
This
limitation
would
have
made
sense
if
there
were
clear
evidence
that
55
Staff
was
asked
to
elaborate
on
how
LAUSD
planned
to
provide
hard
copies
of
instructional
materials
to
students
whose
parents
declined
to
allow
the
device
to
go
home.
The
Committee
was
told
that
Pearson
would
provide
printable
.pdf
files.
On
the
one
hand,
Instruction
argued
for
the
impossibility
of
equivalence
between
dynamic
digital
content,
which
is
supposedly
necessary
to
the
Common
Core
(and
a
minimum
requirement
of
RFP
#1118),
and
static,
digitized
or
.pdf
content
which
it
suggested
could
not
support
21st
Century
learning.
On
the
other
hand,
Instruction
asserted
that
any
opt-outs
could
be
given
printouts
of
the
curriculum
that
would
presumably
be
Williams/Valenzuela
equivalent.
If
only
digital
and
dynamic
curriculum
meets
the
needs
of
LAUSDs
students,
it
is
not
clear
how
printable
.pdf
files
would
be
acceptable
equivalents.
82
Findings
At
the
Committees
January
7,
2014
meeting,
Mr.
Loera
said
that
advanced
students
would
not
be
expected
to
move
ahead
in
subject
matter,
but
rather
to
delve
deeper
with
grade-level
content.
However,
it
is
unclear
how
the
devices
or
the
Pearson
curricula
can
assist
in
such
deeper
learning.
Also,
Mr.
Loera
never
defined
depth
in
this
context
nor
provided
the
Committee
with
any
pedagogical
explanation
for
why
depth
should
be
the
sole
differentiation
for
advanced
students
to
the
exclusion,
for
example,
of
complexity
and
acceleration.
At
the
same
meeting,
Mr.
Loera
stated
that
differentiation
for
Special
Education
and
ELL
students
remained,
and
always
had
been,
the
teachers
responsibility.
He
asserted
that
the
devices
would
afford
more
flexibility
to
do
this
differentiating
than
paper
and
pencil
materials,
though
no
elaboration
was
offered.
The
Chair
even
asked
for
the
Committee
to
receive
a
demonstration
of
the
device
reading
passages
of
text
back
in
other
languages56,
but
this
was
never
provided
to
the
Committee.
At
the
March
19,
2014
presentation,
the
Pearson
representatives
touted
the
Concept
56
Such
a
feature
could
be
a
useful
tool
for
ELLs,
if
used
appropriately.
83
Corner
feature
of
their
content
as
a
source
for
students
to
gain
exposure
to
some
deeper
elements
of
the
common
core
math.
Unfortunately,
this
feature
was
not
integrated
with
the
curriculum
itself.
No
matter
what
lesson
or
Unit
(or
grade-level)
one
was
accessing
when
entering
the
Concept
Corner,
it
would
take
them
to
a
generic
welcome
page.
It
was
unclear
how
much
content
was
available
in
the
Concept
Corner
or
whether
this
aspect
of
the
Pearson
content
was
still
under
development.
The
Concept
Corner
was
also
very
slow
to
load
(at
least
in
the
LAUSD
Board
Room)
and
relied
on
Wi-Fi,
to
which
many
students
may
not
have
access
outside
of
the
classroom.
Recommendations
Mr.
Loera
may
be
correct
that
the
devices
and
curriculum
will
aid
in
differentiation
of
instruction,
but
for
the
Committee
to
serve
its
public
function,
its
questions
regarding
how
the
technology
aids
in
differentiation
should
also
be
answered.
We
recommend
that
a
demonstration
of
how
the
devices
and
curriculum
will
aid
in
differentiation
be
provided
to
the
Curriculum,
Instruction,
and
Assessment
Committee.
In
addition,
LAUSD
should
provide
teachers
with
PD
on
how
to
use
the
devices
and
curriculum
to
differentiate
instruction.
Early
Education
Findings
At
the
September
25,
2013
Committee
meeting,
Dr.
Rabinowitz
was
asked
why
Grades
K-2
were
not
included
in
the
SBAC
assessments,
and
he
replied
that
this
was
due
to
a
lack
of
federal
funding
to
develop
assessments
for
those
grades.
However,
Dr.
Rabinowitz
added
that
their
digital
library
would
include
supports
for
kindergarten
and
the
early
grades
to
help
teachers.
As
LAUSD
has
an
extraordinarily
high
concentration
of
ELLs
in
grades
kindergarten
through
third,
it
is
imperative
that
LAUSD
develop
and/or
identify
and
adopt
appropriate
supports
for
these
populations,
and
not
necessarily
rely
on
SBAC
or
others
who
may
lack
the
motivation
and/or
resources
to
do
so
for
it.
It
is
concerning
that
LAUSD
has
not
revealed
any
plan
for
its
use
of
technology
or
its
approach
to
the
CCSS
in
early
education.
Recommendations
LAUSD
should
develop
a
thoughtful
plan
for
using
technology
and
preparing
for
CCSS
in
early
education.
Such
plan
should
be
carefully
designed
in
consultation
with
experts
and
veteran
early
childhood
educators
to
prepare
students
for
the
CCSS
without
impairing
other
important
elements
of
student
learning.57
The
BOEs
57
See
The
Common
Core
State
Standards:
Caution
and
Opportunity
for
Early
Childhood
Education,
National
Association
for
the
Education
of
Young
Children
(NAEYC),
2012,
available
at
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/11_CommonCore1_2A_rv2.pdf
84
Findings
The
Committee
also
explored
the
issue
of
memory
availability
on
the
device
with
only
a
partial
curriculum.
At
the
October
22,
2013
Committee
meeting,
Mr.
Loera
stated
that
storage
limitations
would
prevent
all
curriculum
for
every
grade
level
from
being
loaded
on
the
devices.
At
the
Committees
November
19,
2013
meeting,
It
was
asked
how
much
memory
the
full
Pearson
curriculum
would
consume,
with
one
member
noting
that,
even
with
the
Pearson
curriculum
only
partially
loaded
on
her
iPad,
half
of
the
devices
memory
had
been
used58.
Mr.
Chandler
said
he
would
be
able
to
provide
an
analysis
of
device
memory
needs
to
the
Committee
and
be
able
to
say
how
much
room
there
would
be
for
other
applications
and
digital
content
after
the
full
Pearson
curriculum
had
been
installed
on
the
iPads.
RFP
#1118
required
a
minimum
of
20GB
usable
storage
capacity
for
local
files,
instructional
apps,
documents,
books,
etc.
The
Questions
and
Answers
provided
in
Addendum
No.
2
to
RFP
#1118,
issued
on
March
15,
2013,
clarified
that
the
devices
must
offer
20GB
of
free
storage
capacity
after
OS
and
default
OS
applications
have
been
installed.
While
the
RFP
did
not
prescribe
any
maximum
size
for
the
curricular
content,
presumably,
a
successful
bidder
would
need
to
provide
enough
memory
to
support
the
required
functionalities
and
the
curriculum
included
in
its
bid.
The
Committee
has
not
seen
any
indication
that
Apple,
as
part
of
its
bid,
informed
LAUSD
of
the
amount
of
memory
that
would
be
consumed
by
the
Pearson
curriculum,
once
complete.
The
RFP
did
not
specifically
request
this
information,
and
no
specific
provision
was
made
in
the
scoring
rubric
to
award
points
for
additional
unused
memory.
Recommendations
LAUSD
should
determine
what
the
actual
memory
requirements
of
the
complete
Pearson
curriculum
(and
other
standard
software)
will
be.
If
this
does
not
leave
sufficient
memory
for
LAUSDs
intended
use
of
the
devices
(including
reasonable
flexibility
for
schools,
teachers
and
parents
to
add
their
own
apps),
then
LAUSD
should
consider
renegotiating
to
achieve
memory
enhancements.
58 We note that, unlike student iPads, the iPads provided to Committee Members and External
Representatives
had
the
available
curriculum
(i.e.
the
highly
limited
demonstration
lessons)
loaded
for
multiple
grade
levels.
85
Deputy
Chief
Santome
reported
to
the
Committee
that
LAUSDs
approach
to
security
issues
related
to
sending
the
devices
home
was
primarily
focused
on
protecting
LAUSDs
students,
not
its
inventory.
LAUSD
has
sought
to
do
this
through
a
number
of
safety
and
security
initiatives
introduced
at
various
times
throughout
the
course
of
the
2013-14
school
year:
86
Student training;
Initially,
LAUSDs
student
training
with
respect
to
safety
and
security
consisted
of
providing
safety
flyers
to
students
advising
them
of
certain
dangers
and
suggesting
some
safer
practices.
The
Committee
was
advised
that
LAUSD
was
developing
lesson
plans
for
each
grade
level
(including
an
initial
boot
camp
followed
by
digital
citizenship
lessons
embedded
in
regular
lessons)
in
partnership
with
Common
Sense
Media,
and
incorporating
the
input
of
veteran,
grade-level
educators,
in
consultation
with
ITD
and
police.
Communications
Findings
LAUSDs
communications
to
the
community
regarding
device
safety,
have
included
public
service
announcements
on
KLCS
as
well
as
more
targeted
communications
directed
to
pawn
shops
and
other
second
hand
retailers59
regarding
recognizing
and
reporting
any
stolen
LAUSD
devices
they
might
encounter.
Although
LAUSD
has
prepared
some
public
service
announcements
(PSAs)
related
to
cyber-safety
and/or
digital
citizenship,
it
was
disappointing
to
learn
that
there
was
no
budget
for
this.
As
a
result,
these
efforts
have
been
limited
to
what
KLCS
can
produce
and
distribute
using
existing
personnel.
Recommendations
Since
a
key
element
of
LAUSDs
safety/security
plan
is
to
get
the
word
out
that
the
devices
are
for
student
use
and
LAUSD
will
vigorously
pursue
prosecution
when
students
are
victimized
in
relation
to
the
devices,
it
would
make
sense
for
LAUSD
to
be
more
proactive
and
to
dedicate
an
appropriate
level
of
funding
to
these
activities.
In
addition,
LAUSD
should
consider
seeking
assistance
from
LAUSD
staff
and
students
in
designing
PSAs
that
would
engage
students
and
reach
potential
criminals
and
consider
appropriate
messaging
on
LAUSDs
transportation
fleet.
59
Although
the
extent
of
LASPDs
communications
to
second
hand
retailers
was
not
specifically
discussed
in
Committee
meetings,
an
External
Representative
noted
that
this
outreach
certainly
ought
to
include
on-line
retailers,
such
as
eBay
and
Craigslist,
where
used
technology
of
unknown
provenance
may
be
sold.
87
Device Protection
Findings
After
LAUSDs
experience
with
student
compromise
of
the
MDM
and
LAUSD
filtering
during
the
initial
Phase
1
rollout,
the
MDM
software
was
improved
and
upgraded.
By
the
end
of
the
2013-14
school
year,
LAUSD
had
implemented
a
more
robust
MDM
that
included
at-home
web-filtering.
At
its
May
28,
2014
meeting,
the
Committee
received
a
demonstration
of
the
iPad
being
remotely
disabled,
and
it
seemed
that
at
least
for
devices
that
were
turned
on,
in
North
America,
and
connected
to
the
internet
LAUSDs
Lock-it/Freeze-
it/Track-it
system
could
render
the
device
not
functional.
ITD
reported
to
the
Committee
that
even
third-party
experts
hired
by
LAUSD
to
try
to
circumvent
the
new
security
features
could
not
do
so.
However,
as
the
qualifiers
above
suggest,
there
remain
holes
of
various
sizes
in
LAUSDs
Lock-it/Freeze-it/Track-it
defense:
A
device
could
have
some
residual
value
even
if
its
internet
connectivity
were
intentionally
disabled
to
avoid
detection;
and
The
secondary
market
for
iPad
parts
could
create
opportunities
for
thieves
to
capture
some
value
even
from
disabled
devices.
While
it
is
reassuring
that
features
were
designed
to
make
the
devices
unusable
in
unauthorized
hands,
the
weaknesses
in
Lock-it/Freeze-it/Track-it
mentioned
above
leave
a
measure
of
concern.
Moreover,
the
fact
that
LASPD
has
not
successfully
recovered
any
iPads
stolen
in
burglaries
reinforces
this
concern.
Deputy
Chief
Santome
advised
the
Committee
that
device
security
and
web
filtering
are
not
the
only
issues,
and
that
student
safety
training
and
parent
education
are
also
critical.
Recommendations
LAUSD
should
continue
to
have
IT
experts
and
appropriately
monitored
students
attempt
to
defeat
and
bypass
LAUSD
security
features,
regularly,
to
identify
and
address
security
weaknesses.
LAUSD
should
continue
to
work
with
law
enforcement
and
the
community
to
make
the
devices
high
risk/low
reward
for
those
who
should
not
have
the
devices.
In
the
future,
LAUSD
may
want
to
consider
the
benefit
of
purchasing
devices
that
do
not
have
as
much
illegal
resale
value.
Safe-Passages
Findings
While
LASPDs
efforts
to
coordinate
with
law
enforcement
partners
are
88
advantageous,
it
was
troubling
that
the
kind
of
extra
safe-passages
patrols
used
for
the
device
Take
Home
Test
Pilot
in
May
and
June
2014
would
not
be
sustainable
without
hiring
80
additional
LASPD
officers,
according
to
Deputy
Chief
Santomes
testimony.
Recommendations
LAUSD
should
determine
ways
to
continue
safe
passages
patrols
to
help
protect
its
students
when
they
take
valuable
devices
home
with
them.
LAUSD
should
consider
hiring
more
officers.
LAUSD
should
seek
to
make
public
the
agendas
and/or
minutes
of
meetings
where
outside
agencies
demonstrate
their
commitment
of
support
and
collaboration
with
LASPDs
safe-passages
program.
School
Site
Storage
Findings
In
order
to
make
theft
of
devices
from
school
sites
more
difficult,
LAUSD
adopted
a
protocol
that,
prior
to
devices
being
delivered
to
a
school,
among
other
things,
LASPD
would
conduct
a
physical
assessment
together
with
the
Principal
and
provide
advice
to
the
Principals
in
selecting
safe
rooms
for
device
storage
at
the
school
site.
The
Committee
was
told
that,
to
the
extent
facilities
improvements
were
necessary
to
improve
security,
these
could
be
made
narrowly
using
bond
funds
for
CCTP.
Recommendations
LAUSD
should
continue
to
help
Principals
select
safe
rooms
for
device
storage
at
the
school
site
and
provide
necessary
facilities
improvements.
RF
Exposure
Findings
Public
speakers
at
some
Committee
meetings
raised
concerns
about
potential
harm
from
wireless
signal
exposure,
particularly
for
individuals
who
may
suffer
from
electrosensitivity.
Mr.
Sterritt
told
the
Committee
that
LAUSD
had
investigated
the
potential
harms
of
radio
frequency
(RF)
radiation
beginning
with
the
installation
of
cell
phone
towers
near
school
sites.
At
that
time,
a
precautionary
standard
of
0.1
microwatt/cm2
was
established,
which
is
a
level
10,000
times
lower
than
current
regulatory
requirements.
He
said
that
LAUSD
also
engaged
outside
technical
consultants
(U.R.S.)
through
an
RFP
process
to
review
the
current
standards,
and
U.R.S.
determined
that
the
existing
standards
were
proper.
Using
those
standards,
the
specifications
for
the
devices
were
developed
and
included
in
the
RFP
for
the
89
devices
themselves.
He
indicated
that
LAUSD
was
also
looking
ahead
to
prospective
keyboard
and
Bluetooth
activity,
to
make
sure
exposures
will
remain
in
the
safe
range.
Dr.
Uyeda
also
addressed
the
Committee
regarding
RF
exposure.
She
confirmed
that
LAUSD
had
set
a
precautionary
threshold
in
2013
that
is
10,000
times
lower
than
FCC
recommended
thresholds.
She
said
that
the
technical
specifications
required
in
procurement
for
the
devices
included
RF
limitations
designed
to
maintain
the
precautionary
threshold.
Dr.
Uyeda
reported
that
the
World
Health
Organization
has
described
electrosensitivity
as
characterized
by
a
variety
of
symptoms
but
that
there
was
no
scientific
basis
to
link
symptoms
to
electromagnetic
field
exposure.
Dr.
Uyeda
also
asserted
that,
from
evidence
gathered
so
far,
there
were
no
adverse
short-
or
long-term
health
effects
from
RF
signals
produced
at
bay
stations
(such
as
a
cell
tower),
and
that
wireless
networks
produce
even
lower
RF
signals.
Dr.
Uyeda
said
LAUSD
was
tracking
student
health
through
health
office
visits
and
would
be
be
looking
for
trends
that
might
be
the
result
of
wireless
exposure.
It
was
asked
how
a
student
could
be
accommodated
if
they
are,
in
fact,
sensitive
to
RF
output.
Dr.
Uyeda
said
this
would
be
handled
similarly
to
other
requests
for
accommodation.
Public
speakers
at
the
Committees
May
28,
2014
meeting
included
a
teacher
and
several
students
from
Johnnie
Cochran
Jr.
Middle
School
who
complained
of
Wi-Fi
related
health
problems
at
their
school.
One
student
stated
that
many
teachers
have
been
dying
and
our
Assistant
Principal
died
after
the
Wi-Fi
was
installed.
Others
complained
of
headaches,
nosebleeds
and
ear-bleeds.
OEHS
investigated
these
claims
and
found
that
Wi-Fi
exposures
at
Johnnie
Cochran
Jr.
Middle
School
were
well
below
LAUSDs
precautionary
threshold.
Moreover,
the
investigation
concluded
that
there
have
been
no
documented
student
cases
of
nose
and
ear
bleeds
at
Johnnie
Cochran
Jr.
Middle
School
in
the
past
school
year.
As
the
health
and
safety
of
LAUSDs
students
are
of
paramount
importance,
the
Committee
commends
LAUSD
for
its
prompt
and
continuing
investigation
of
any
health
risks
that
may
be
associated
with
LAUSDs
Virtual
Learning
Complex,
even
where
such
risks
may
appear
extremely
remote.
Recommendations
LAUSD
must
continue
tracking
student
health
through
health
office
visits
and
looking
for
trends
that
might
be
the
result
of
wireless
exposure.
LAUSD
should
provide
informational
materials
for
employees,
parents
and
students
who
are
concerned
about
RF
Exposure
at
the
school
site.
90
III.I
Training
Overview
Findings
Although
the
contract
with
Apple-Pearson
only
required
Pearson
to
provide
one
training
session
per
school,
as
of
December
4,
2013,
Pearson
had
completed
161
school
visits
and
had
scheduled
another
22
school
visits.
The
Committee
was
told
that
some
schools
were
visited
more
than
others
(e.g.
Roosevelt
once,
but
Westport
Heights
15
times)
based
on
those
schools
requests
for
extra
visits.
This
raised
a
number
of
concerns
for
the
Committee,
which
have
not
been
clearly
resolved:
While
providing
the
additional
free
PD
may
have
been
a
nice
gesture
by
Pearson,
it
may
not
be
available
in
the
context
of
a
district-wide
rollout,
and
may
foster
a
false
sense
of
readiness.
Is
there
any
evidence
that
schools
with
more
PD
did
better
than
the
ones
that
received
less
PD?
Mr.
Loera
reported
to
the
Committee
that
long-term
substitute
teachers
received
PD
together
with
regular
teachers.
He
advised
that
day-to-day
substitutes,
on
the
other
hand,
did
not,
and
that
LAUSD
had
not
provided
training
for
any
classified
staff
not
even
the
Classified
Instructional
Aides,
Special
Education
Aides
or
Teaching
Assistants,
all
of
whom
work
directly
with
students.
Mr.
Loera
advised
that,
although
there
were
no
district-wide
plans
for
such
trainings,
school
sites
were
free
to
use
their
budgets
for
that
if
they
wished.
Perceived
quality,
quantity
and
breadth
of
PD
were
some
aspects
of
Phase
1
that
were
probed
by
the
some
of
the
data
gathering
and
evaluation
efforts
that
have
been
91
done
so
far.
The
UTLA
survey
found
that
63%
of
respondents
reported
that
they
did
not
receive
adequate
training.
A
number
of
comments
gathered
through
that
UTLA
survey
suggested
that
the
teacher
training
should
be
tiered,
to
better
align
with
the
actual
technological
literacy
of
each
teacher.
Even
though
Pearson
was
providing
more
PD
than
LAUSD
had
contracted
for,
the
UTLA
survey
found
that
45%
of
respondents
were
dissatisfied
with
the
Pearson
training
and
said
more
PD
is
needed.
Even
after
upwards
of
20
hours
of
training,
81%
of
teachers
surveyed
did
not
agree
that
LAUSD
provided
adequate
training.
In
the
AALA
survey,
respondents
average
rating
of
the
Helpfulness
of
District-provided
training
to
effectively
implement
the
iPad
program
was
2.83
on
a
scale
of
one
to
four.
The
AALA
survey
results
also
included
a
number
of
PD-related
answers
to
a
free-response
question
regarding
topics
missing
from
training.
This
list
may
be
of
use
in
planning
future
trainings.
The
Committee
had
asked
whether
schools
with
more
Pearson
PD
were
better
implementing
the
iPad
rollout.
While
it
may
be
too
soon
to
identify
any
effects
of
varying
parameters
in
implementation
on
student
achievement,
it
should
not
be
too
soon
to
know
whether
different
parameters
in
implementation
affected
implementation
itself.
There
was
some
indication
from
Dr.
Lims
report
that
LAUSD
may
be
in
the
process
of
asking
teachers
how
prepared
they
felt
and
students
how
clear
the
direction
was
that
they
received
from
teachers.
Given
that
Phases
2
and
1L
are
rolling
out
in
Fall
2014,
there
is
a
clear
benefit
to
quickly
resolving
what
variables
in
implementation
may
be
responsible
for
differences
in
those
teacher
and
student
perceptions,
making
such
findings
public,
and
adjusting
the
rollouts
PD,
training
schedules,
and
content
appropriately.
Recommendations
LAUSD
should
develop
comprehensive
teacher,
substitute
teacher,
classified
staff,
student
and
parent
training,
seeking
out
and
distributing
best
practices60.
The
UTLA
and
ALAA
surveys
as
well
as
the
Office
of
Data
and
Accountabilitys
Interim
Report
all
suggested
that
teachers
could
benefit
from
more
CCTP-related
PD.
One
recommendation
to
promote
efficiency
is
that
teacher
training
should
be
tiered,
to
better
align
with
the
actual
technological
literacy
of
each
teacher.
LAUSD
ought
to
determine
what
kind
of
long-term
systemic
PD
would
be
optimal
and
communicate
this
to
all
of
its
schools.
Substitute
teachers
should
receive
CCTP-related
PD
so
they
can
implement
teacher
lesson
plans
and
assist
students.
Classified
staff
working
with
students
and/or
parents
should
also
be
provided
with
PD
so
they
can
assist
students
and
respond
productively
to
students
and
parents
technology-related
questions.
60 An External Representative commented that Schools should be given the opportunity to review
available
modules
and
trainings
and
choose
those
that
best
meet
the
needs
and
experiences
of
their
students,
parents
and
teachers.
92
Student Training
Findings
The
Committee
has
not
seen
much
data
on
either:
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
about
the
planned
quantity
of
digital
citizenship
lessons,
and
he
advised
that
it
would
not
be
based
on
hours
of
instruction,
but
on
behaviors
evident
in
students
use
of
the
technology.
Ms.
Lucas
said
LAUSD
is
working
with
Common
Sense
Media
to
develop
plans
for
each
grade
level,
including
an
initial
boot
camp
followed
by
digital
citizenship
lessons
embedded
in
regular
lessons.
Recommendations
Student
training
should
include,
at
the
very
least,
training
on
proper
care
of
devices,
security
and
safety,
use
of
LAUSD-provided
content,
and
digital
citizenship.
The
Committee
was
advised
that
LAUSD
was
developing
lesson
plans
for
each
grade
level
in
partnership
with
Common
Sense
Media,
and
incorporating
the
input
of
veteran,
grade-level
educators,
in
consultation
with
ITD.
These
seem
like
good
strategies.
Indeed,
the
Chair
has
commented
positively
on
the
Common
Sense
Media
lessons
that
she
has
seen.
However,
the
Committee
would
like
to
see
LAUSD
have
a
comprehensive
student
CCTP
training
plan
versus
have
student
training
left
completely
to
school
site
discretion.
Furthermore,
there
would
be
value
in
making
the
extent
of
this
training
public,
as
that
could
allay
some
fears
that
devices
are
being
given
to
some
students
who
are
wholly
unprepared
and
it
could
allow
constructive
input
from
the
community.
The
Committee
would
urge
LAUSD
to
establish
and
publish
a
comprehensive
student
CCTP
training
plan
before
it
distributes
additional
one-to-one
devices
in
Phases
2
and
1L.
Parent
Education
The
Committee
noted
that
LAUSDs
parent
education
efforts
had
been
focused
mostly
on
why
CCTP
was
important
and
not
on
how
to
use
devices
or
how
to
assist
students
with
content.
Ms.
Lucas
concurred
in
such
assessment,
and
stated
that
LAUSD
expected
schools
to
provide
such
parent
education
in
a
variety
of
ways
across
the
district.
After
hearing
CETFs
presentation
to
the
Committee
regarding
its
parent
training
research
and
experience,
Ms.
Lucas
was
asked
whether
LAUSD
was
directing
any
parent
training
materials
and
procedures
or
otherwise
conducting
quality
control.
Ms.
Lucas
reported
that
there
are
modules
and
handbooks
for
schools
to
use.
While
there
may
be
somewhat
different
concerns
at
different
schools,
parent
education
seems
like
an
area
that
would
benefit
from
central
guidance
from
LAUSD
as
far
as
subject
matter
and
pedagogical
tips.
93
A
related
area
of
concern
is
the
extent
of
parental
liability
for
loss
of,
or
damage
to,
devices.
Although
some
of
the
early
versions
of
the
parent
acknowledgement
form
may
have
imposed
greater
parental
liability,
LAUSD
ultimately
concluded
that
parent
liability
with
respect
to
devices
should
be
coextensive
with
that
provided
under
the
Education
Code
section
48904.
At
the
Committees
February
6,
2014
meeting,
Mr.
McNair
advised
the
Committee
that
the
same
Education
Code
section
48904
applied
to
parent
liability
for
the
iPads
and
for
textbooks.
The
standard
under
such
law
was
one
of
willful
misconduct.
Mr.
McNair
also
suggested
that,
since
school
sites
traditionally
made
these
determinations
with
respect
to
textbooks,
presumably
they
would
for
the
iPads,
too.
Mr.
McNair
also
explained
that
the
acknowledgement
form
is
a
notice,
not
a
contract,
and
that
the
parents
would
be
equally
liable
if
their
student
willfully
destroyed
an
iPad,
whether
or
not
they
signed
the
form.
It
is
critically
important
that
LAUSD
honor
the
wishes
of
parents
that
do
not
opt-in,
as
a
parent
would
be
reasonably
outraged
if
held
responsible
for
damage
to
a
device
even
for
malicious
damage
when
the
parents
never
said
they
wanted
the
device
sent
home.
At
the
March
5,
2014
Committee
meeting,
Mr.
Urgiles
gave
a
presentation
on
CETFs
School2Home
program
aimed
at
integrating
the
use
of
technology
into
teaching
and
learning.
Mr.
Urgiles
stressed
that
CETFs
program
employed
lots
of
PD,
including
six
hours
of
parent
education,
which
parents
would
complete
in
order
to
earn
a
device
for
their
students
to
take
home61.
CETFs
parent
education
piece
covered
use
and
care
of
devices,
on-line
safety,
and
showed
parents
how
to
access
the
student
information
system.
Mr.
Urgiles
described
CETFs
strategy
of
introducing
devices
in
the
classroom
without
sending
them
home.
He
said
this
allowed
the
teachers
to
excite
the
students
about
the
devices
and
to
recruit
the
students
to
advocate
for
their
parents
to
attend
the
parent
trainings
so
they
may
bring
the
devices
home.
He
indicated
that
CETF
had
been
able
to
achieve
greater
than
80%
parent
participation.
Mr.
Urgiles
said
that
CETF
pays
about
$12,000
to
$15,000
per
school,
and
he
provided
the
Committee
with
a
more
complete
schedule
of
program
costs,
which
included
the
school
sites
costs
(such
as
teachers
time
serving
as
facilitators)62.
He
added
that
some
schools
leverage
resources
creatively
by
using
volunteer
top
students
from
local
adult
schools,
and
stressed
that
CETFs
goal
was
to
work
with
schools
to
set
things
up
and
then
go
away.63
61
Mr.
Urgiles
said
that
some
schools
choose
to
allow
students
to
take
devices
home
even
if
their
62 The financial data emailed by Mr. Urgiles included totals of approximately: $928,000 for Muir MS
(Grades
6-8,
with
1,272
students):
$1.2
million
for
Stevenson
MS
(Grades
6-8,
with
1,945
students);
$1.9
million
aggregate
for
SFIAM,
Vaugh
&
Maclay
(Grades
6-8,
with
1,784
students);
and
$628,000
for
Madison
MS
(Grades
6-8,
with
600
students).
That
was
about
$1,000/student
for
the
smaller
schools
and
$700/student
for
the
big
ones,
including
about
$412
for
student
devices.
These
expenses
include
devices,
as
well
as
operational
costs,
but
not
infrastructure.
63
In
a
July
2,
2014
letter
from
CETF
to
LAUSD,
included
as
Appendix
A34
hereto,
Mr.
Urgiles
describes LAUSDs unproductive response to CETFs proposal to partner with LAUSD to assist CCTP
94
The
Committee
did
not
see
evidence
that
any
training
was
being
prepared
by
LAUSD
for
Principals
in
determining
willful
misconduct
with
respect
to
iPads,
in
the
context
of
assessing
parent
liability
for
loss
or
damage.
Recommendations
While
school
autonomy
is
a
worthy
goal,
allowing
schools
to
determine
if
they
want
to
fund
additional
PD
for
staff,
including
classified
staff,
and
parents
could
lead
to
disparities
in
trainings
and
training
amounts
which
could
result
in
significant
disparities
in
student
success.
Close
monitoring
of
PD
offered
and
student
achievement
is
necessary.
Schools
should
have
a
chance
to
review
any
training
modules
and
handbooks
prior
to
Phase
3
commencing.
Without
clear
central
guidance,
it
is
imperative
that
LAUSD
keep
careful
track
of
the
data
on
how
parents
are
treated
to
ensure
that
the
treatment
of
parents
in
cases
of
willful
misconduct
leading
to
loss
or
damage
is
equal
and
equitable
across
LAUSD.
It
would
also
be
useful
for
LAUSD
to
avail
itself
of
research
already
done
by
third
parties,
such
as
the
parent
training
best
practices
that
CETF
has
thoroughly
researched.
CETFs
parent
training
model,
which
promotes
parent
engagement
and
covers
use
and
care
of
devices,
on-line
safety,
and
shows
parents
how
to
access
the
student
information
system
was
impressive.
LAUSD
should
seek
to
provide
parent
education
of
similar
depth
and
scope.
III.J.
Discipline
Findings
There
were
several
questions
surrounding
LAUSDs
plan
for
ensuring
consistent
appropriate
discipline
related
to
misuse
of
technology.
At
its
September
25,
2013
meeting,
it
was
asked
what
would
the
ultimate
consequences
be
of
any
progressive
discipline
matrix
with
respect
to
infractions
involving
technology.
The
Committee
noted
that,
if
the
iPad
becomes
equivalent
to
a
textbook
at
some
point,
then
LAUSD
may
not
be
able
to
take
it
away
as
a
consequence.
A
Board
Informative
from
Matt
Hill,
Chief
Strategy
Officer,
and
Mr.
Chandler,
dated
September
24,
2013,
stated
that
a
universal
set
of
progressive
disciplinary
actions
has
been
developed
for
students
that
remove
M.D.M.
and
violate
the
acceptable
use
policy.
At
that
time,
the
Committee
requested
to
see
that
discipline
matrix,
even
if
a
new
one
was
then
under
development.
On
October
22,
2013,
Mr.
Chandler
told
the
Committee
that
he
would
bring
information
regarding
bullying
and
LAUSDs
Acceptable
Use
Policy
in
the
future.64
At
the
Committees
January
7,
2014
meeting,
Ms.
Lucas
asserted
that
the
parent
engagement.
In
order
to
avoid
unnecessarily
generating
ill
will
among
its
prospective
(and
existing)
partners,
LAUSD
should
strive
for
more
timely
and
transparent
communications.
64
See
slides
presented
to
the
November
19,
2013
Committee
meeting,
included
in
Appendix
A17
hereto.
95
CCTP
team
determined
no
separate
discipline
matrix
was
necessary,
but
that
they
were
in
the
process
of
designing
an
intervention
matrix
and
school
memo.
At
the
Committees
April
24,
2014
meeting,
Mr.
Loera
said
the
intervention
matrix
was
not
ready
to
be
publicly
released
yet,
and,
when
the
Chair
asked
when
it
would
be
available,
Ms.
Lucas
replied
that
it
would
be
by
the
beginning
of
the
2014-15
school
year.
Recommendations
To
ensure
appropriate
and
fair
discipline
across
LAUSD,
the
intervention
matrix
should
be
published
as
soon
as
possible,
particularly
to
Phase
1,
2,
and
1L
schools.
LAUSD
should
also
investigate
why
some
communications
take
months
to
be
created
and
published.
III.K.
Loss
of,
or
Damage
to,
Devices
Findings
Information
presented
to
the
Committee
established
that
parents
will
only
be
liable
for
damage
to
(or
loss
of)
devices
due
to
willful
misconduct.
Moreover,
the
situation
may
arise
where
a
parent,
though
liable,
is
unable
to
pay
LAUSD.
RFP
#1118
only
required
Proposers
to
assume
the
risk
of
loss
of,
or
damage
to,
the
equipment
provided,
except
for
replacement
or
repair
costs
due
to
the
negligent
or
intentional
act
of
an
employee
or
student.
The
extended
warranty
included
in
LAUSDs
actual
contract
with
Apple65
provides
LAUSD
with
a
warranty
against
defects
in
materials
and
workmanship
when
used
normally
in
accordance
with
[Apples]
published
guidelines.
This
is,
at
best,
the
assumption
of
risk
required
by
RFP
#1118
and,
arguably,
a
whole
lot
less
as
there
may
be
some
distance
between
Apples
idea
of
normal
use
and
a
users
negligence
or
intentional
act.
Recommendations
Whether
or
not
LAUSD
contracted
for
the
warranty
it
had
sought,
LAUSD
needs
some
established
policies
for
allocating
loss
of,
or
damage
to,
devices
from
negligent
or
intentional
acts
(or
from
abnormal
uses)
that
do
not
rise
to
the
standard
of
willful
misconduct.
In
this
regard,
some
relevant
questions
include:
Are
a
sufficient
number
of
devices
included
in
the
spare
pool
for
this
contingency?
If
not,
will
school-site
or
central
LAUSD
funds
be
used
to
repair
and
replace
devices?
65 See Section 2 of Exhibit D to the Agreement between Apple Inc. and LAUSD, dated as of July 16,
96
How
will
LAUSD
ensure
that
an
equitable
and
consistent
approach
is
taken
with
respect
to
parents
who
are
legally
liable
but
for
whom
the
expense
may
be
unduly
burdensome?
III.L.
Software
and
Accessories
Findings
There
are
good
reasons
for
LAUSD
to
impose
some
limits
on
what
software
and
accessories
can
be
used
with
devices.
Among
other
things,
some
products
may
be
inappropriate,
distracting,
harmful
to
LAUSD
security
features,
prone
to
abuse
or
merely
incompatible
with
LAUSD-mandated
technology.
However,
one
side-effect
of
centrally
imposed
LAUSD
security
features
is
that
they
take
some
flexibility
away
from
schools
and
individual
classrooms.
Recommendations
LAUSD
ought
to
seek
a
balance
between
prescriptive
mandates
and
freedom
of
choice.
Policy
should
be
set
regarding
the
use
of
social
media,
including
but
not
limited
to
Facebook,
and
YouTube.
In
order
to
facilitate
positive
innovation,
LAUSD
should
formulate
a
streamlined
procedure
for
the
approval
of
technology
enhancements,
and
a
consistent,
principled,
set
of
criteria
by
which
to
accept
or
reject
proposals.
LAUSD
should
also
regularly
publish
changes
to
the
approved
list,
so
that
administrators,
instructors,
staff,
parents,
and
students
can
keep
abreast
of
available
technology
enhancements.
The
Committee
recognizes
that,
while
end-user
choice
is
a
form
of
competition,
LAUSD
must
consider
if
and
when
it
would
be
necessary
or
appropriate
to
undertake
a
formal
procurement
for
optional
technology
enhancements
so
chosen.
III.M.
Engaging
Parents
in
Monitoring
Student
Device
Use
Findings
The
Committee
commends
LAUSD
for
moving
to
an
opt-in
system
that
requires
parents
to
opt-in
prior
to
devices
going
home.
An
opt-in
system
ensures
that
parents
are
aware
that
their
child
will
be
receiving
a
device,
using
the
device,
and
taking
the
device
home.
It
was
asked
whether
a
parent
could
download
an
app
that
tracks
the
devices
usage.
Mr.
Chandler
committed
to
do
some
research
and
get
back
to
the
Committee
on
that.
The
Committee
also
asked
if
parents
could
be
sent
an
email
notification
if
their
students
device
appears
to
leave
the
security
monitoring
system.
The
Committee
was
told
that
it
was
technically
possible.
97
Recommendation
Empowering
parents
to
monitor
their
students
digital
activities
would
have
some
clear
advantages.
First,
it
would
provide
the
parents
with
peace
of
mind
(or
at
least
accurate
data)
regarding
their
students
on-line
activities.
Second,
closely
monitoring
the
digital
activities
of
over
600,000
students
would
be
an
enormous
challenge
for
LAUSD.
A
good
monitoring
app
could
empower
parents
who
have
the
greatest
interest
in
their
respective
students
to
do
the
bulk
of
this
monitoring
for
LAUSD.
LAUSD
would
be
well
served
to
provide
such
an
app
on
devices
for
parents.
In
addition,
LAUSD
should
investigate
the
feasibility
and
benefits
of
sending
email
or
text
alerts
to
any
parent
who
desires,
if
their
students
device
appears
to
leave
the
security
monitoring
system.
III.N.
Evaluation
Findings
At
its
inaugural
meeting,
Mr.
Chandler
was
asked
to
come
back
to
the
Committee
with
the
set
of
metrics
that
LAUSD
would
use
to
gauge
whether
Phase
1
was
a
success.66
In
order
to
promote
a
coherent
vision
of
LAUSDs
goals,
it
is
important
to
define
success
in
advance.
Otherwise,
it
is
very
difficult
to
evaluate
performance
and
determine
opportunities
for
improvement.
While
the
Committee
had
seen
various
slides
describing
ongoing
evaluation
results,
the
Committee
had
not
seen
any
LAUSD
master
plan
for
evaluating
the
CCTP
or
been
provided
with
detailed
and
specific
metrics
for
gauging
success.
That
is
not
to
say
that
evaluations
have
not
been
conducted,
rather
that
it
would
be
helpful
for
LAUSD
to
frame
specific
expectations
around
the
extent,
timing
and
purposes
of
its
planned
evaluation
activities.
In
addition,
it
is
not
clear
how
LAUSD
intends
to
measure
any
increase
in
academic
achievement.
This
measurement
is
extremely
important
to
show
if
and
how
the
Apple-Pearson
and
Phase
1L
device-curriculum
bundles
may
improve
learning.
The
main
LAUSD-directed
evaluation
that
concluded
in
the
2013-14
school
year
was
the
Interim
Evaluation
Report
of
the
Common
Core
Technology
Project,
dated
May
20,
2014,
which
related
to
the
CCTP
rollout
of
Phase
1
devices
to
44
schools
in
a
10-
week
period.67
The
Committee
was
told
that
LAUSD
had
also
retained
an
independent
third
party
research
organization,
AIR,
to
conduct
additional
and
longer-term
evaluations
related
to
CCTP.
However
it
was
uncertain
when
any
results
would
be
available.
66See
Dr.
Lims
slides
presented
at
the
September
25,
2013
Committee
meeting,
included
in
Appendix
A17 hereto.
67 The complete Interim Evaluation Report of the Common Core Technology Project, dated May 20,
98
However,
they
were
fairly
divided
on
whether
students
should
take
the
devices
home
(55%
yes,
30%
no,
and
15%
not
sure).
The
Chairs
office
sent
a
survey
(the
Graduate
Device
Survey)
to
alumni
of
College
Match,
a
non-profit
college
preparatory
program
for
low-income
high
school
students
that
operates
on
10
LAUSD
campuses
and
two
campuses
in
neighboring
school
districts,
who
were
attending
colleges
and
universities
across
the
country.
The
45
respondents
represented
24
colleges
and
universities
in
11
States.
Most
respondents
(32
out
of
45)
were
undergraduates
at
the
time
of
the
survey,
and
the
rest
had
graduated
within
the
past
three
years.
Among
other
things,
the
Graduate
Device
Survey
sought
to
determine
what
devices
LAUSDs
alumni
were
actually
using
for
college
work.
The
overwhelming
majority
(44
out
of
45)
of
respondents
reported
that
they
owned
laptops,
while
four
of
those
44
also
owned
a
tablet.70
LAUSDs
Procurement
division
sought
one-to-one
program
market
information
from
other
school
districts
through
a
LAUSD
Device
Procurement
Survey.
Unfortunately,
there
was
a
very
low
response
rate
to
this
survey.
However,
LAUSD
did
gain
some
information
regarding
the
technology
purchases
of
several
other
districts,
but
found
it
difficult
to
make
a
direct
comparison
to
LAUSDs
program.71
LAUSDs
Student
Testing
and
Assessment
Branch
of
the
Office
of
Data
and
Accountability
conducted
a
School
Technology
Readiness
Survey,
the
results
of
68 For additional results from the UTLA survey, see the materials from the Committees November 19,
71 The results of the Procurement divisions survey can be found in the February 6, 2014 Committee
99
which
it
reported
at
the
Committees
February
6,
2014
meeting.
The
survey
was
intended
to
evaluate
schools
technological
readiness
for
the
SBAC
assessments.
Although
the
School
Technology
Readiness
Survey
found
that
only
38%
of
the
responding
schools
were
deemed
ready
to
use
the
computer
labs
for
testing
as
of
the
time
surveyed,
LAUSD
staff
would
later
report
to
the
Committee
that,
in
the
actual
SBAC
Field
Test,
91%
(or
812,557)
of
888,740
test
sessions
were
successfully
started
district-wide,
of
which
95%
(or
772,369)
were
completed.
While
not
perfect,
91%
was
a
dramatic
improvement
from
the
38%
that
were
deemed
ready
at
the
time
of
the
School
Technology
Readiness
Survey
conducted
just
a
few
months
prior
to
the
SBAC
Field
Test.
It
is
unclear
what
portions
of
that
improvement
may
have
been
due
to
amelioration
of
technology
weaknesses
at
LAUSD,
on
the
one
hand,
or
at
SBAC,
on
the
other,
or
whether
the
School
Technology
Readiness
Survey
was
actually
probative
of
LAUSDs
real
readiness
at
the
time
it
was
conducted.
In
any
event,
LAUSD
should
be
commended
for
its
role
in
the
rapid
improvement
ahead
of
the
Field
Test.
Some
additional
feedback
reported
to
the
Committee
from
the
SBAC
Field
Test
suggested
that,
due
largely
to
screen
size,
desktops
worked
better
for
testing,
however
mobile
devices
may
be
more
useful
in
the
classroom.
Principals
and
Testing
Coordinators
asserted
that
it
would
be
helpful
to
receive
the
devices
earlier
in
the
year,
so
students
and
teachers
could
have
more
time
to
familiarize
themselves
with
the
equipment
before
the
testing
window,
and
advised
that
more
devices
would
be
helpful
in
order
to
timely
move
students
through
the
assessments.
They
also
indicated
a
desire
for
additional
face-to-face
training,
rather
than
relying
so
heavily
on
videos.
At
the
May
28,
2014
Committee
meeting,
Mr.
Loera
reported
to
the
Committee
on
a
Take
Home
Test
Pilot
for
which
two
schools
were
to
select
approximately
30
students
each
to
bring
their
devices
home
between
May
19,
and
June
2,
2014.
Depending
how
the
schools
chose
the
participating
students,
and
given
the
additional
precautions
which
may
not
all
be
scalable
district-wide,
the
pilot
might
only
provide
a
sense
of
the
best-case
scenario.
That
said,
there
are
probably
lessons
to
be
learned
even
from
a
pilot
with
a
bias
towards
hand-picked
students
operating
in
a
more
protected
environment.72
One
mandate
of
the
Student
Success
Through
an
Evaluation-Based
Common
Core
Technology
Project
resolution
was
the
requirement
that
an
evaluation
be
conducted
across
Phases
1,
2
and
1L
to
determine
what
device
or
devices
and
curriculum
or
curricula
should
be
used
in
any
future
Phases.
LAUSD
has,
only
recently,
completed
its
preliminary
evaluation
of
the
Phase
1
CCTP
roll-out,
and
Phases
2
and
1L
are
scheduled
to
commence
in
Fall
2014.
It
is
unclear
how
soon
LAUSD
will
be
able
to
72
An
External
Representative
suggested
that
LAUSD
would
be
well
served
to
keep
track
of
the
different
ways
schools
either
do
or
do
not
permit
devices
to
go
home,
to
evaluate
any
effect
this
has
on
student
engagement
and
achievement,
and
to
consider
whether
there
are
any
demographic
disparities
in
these
policies.
100
What
surveys,
focus
groups,
and
other
evaluations
does
LAUSD
plan
to
have
performed?
In
light
of
the
recent
one-to-one
pilot
conducted
in
May
2014
and
the
plan
to
embed
relevant
questions
in
the
Student
Experience
Survey,
which
was
completed
at
the
end
of
the
2013-2014
year,
LAUSD
should
gather,
digest
and
publish
the
available
data
soon
in
order
to
inform
future
decisions.
Outside
evaluators
hired
by
LAUSD
should
be
carefully
vetted
to
ensure
their
impartiality
and
that
there
is
no
appearance
that
they
may
be
subject
to
any
conflicts
of
interest.
In
advance
of
Phases
2
and
1L,
LAUSD
ought
to
determine
and
make
public:
The questions LAUSD will seek to answer through its cross-Phase evaluation;
In
addition,
schools
throughout
LAUSD
and
school
districts
across
the
state
and
country
are
purchasing
technology
for
student
use.
Recognizing
that
technology
changes
rapidly,
LAUSD
should
gather
as
much
information
as
possible
from
its
schools
and
other
districts
regarding
which
equipment
best
meets
the
needs
of
students
and
why
prior
to
future
purchases.
III.O.
SBAC
Common
Core
Assessments
Findings
While
not
the
sole
reason
behind
LAUSDs
CCTP,
one
reason
why
LAUSD
sought
to
implement
the
project
as
quickly
as
possible
was
to
allow
students
to
prepare
for
the
SBAC
assessment.
In
light
of
that,
one
would
question
how
the
SBAC
assessments
are
superior
to
traditional
assessments
and
why
it
is
essential
that
students
take
the
SBAC
assessments
on
a
computer
platform.
The
Committee
heard
101
that
the
SBAC
assessments
will
be
superior
to
traditional
assessments
in
the
future
as
they
will
be
computer
adaptive
which
will
allow
for
more
pointed
assessments
and
results.
In
addition,
the
Committee
learned
that
technology
skills
are
embedded
in
the
CCSS
and
therefore,
more
appropriately
tested
on
a
computer
platform.
At
its
September
25,
2013
meeting,
Mr.
Loera
was
asked
to
bring
to
the
next
meeting
some
examples
of
non-multiple
choice
questions
from
various
grade
levels
of
Math
and
ELA.
Dr.
Rabinowitz
of
SBAC
clarified
that
the
concept
of
grade-level
does
not
strictly
apply
to
test
questions,
but
that
the
Committee
could
see
examples
of
elementary,
middle
and
high
school
questions.
The
examples
provided,73
while
not
multiple
choice,
were
not
transformed
by
technology
in
any
perceptible
way.
The
sample
problems
could
have
been
delivered
equally
effectively
in
traditional
paper
and
pencil
version.
The
promise
of
free-response
questions,
as
compared
to
multiple
choice,
is
that
they
theoretically
enable
the
assessor
to
analyze
the
test-
takers
reasoning.
The
risk
of
free-response
questions
is
that
scoring
can
often
depend
on
the
particular
assessor
and
his
or
her
interpretation
of
the
scoring
rubric,
or
on
the
fidelity
of
the
rubric,
itself74.
During
a
Committee
meeting,
the
question
arose
regarding
how
SBAC
assessment
results
will
be
used
in
future
teacher
evaluations.
Anecdotal
evidence
was
presented
that
desktop
computers
and/or
devices
with
larger
screens
were
the
preferred
device
for
test
taking.
More
information
is
needed
as
to
what
devices
make
the
ideal
testing
device
and
how
LAUSD
can
make
use
of
that
information.
Recommendations
In
light
of
LAUSDs
significant
interest
in
the
creation
of
assessments
that
accurately
73
See
Instruction
slides
included
in
Appendix
A17
hereto.
74
For
example,
a
sample
problem
on
SBACs
website
(see
102
and
fairly
assess
its
students,
LAUSD
should
keep
a
close
eye
on
the
creation
of
SBAC
questions
and
lobby
as
necessary
for
appropriate
and
fair
questions.
As
teachers
strive
to
do
well
on
evaluations
and
Mr.
Loera
mentioned
that
there
would
most
likely
be
a
dip
in
scores
upon
implementation
of
the
new
testing
system,
LAUSD
should
clearly
determine
and
communicate
if,
how,
and
when
SBAC
scores
will
be
integrated
into
the
teacher
evaluation
system.
While
the
question
did
not
arise
regarding
the
evaluation
of
principals,
in
as
much
as
it
also
applies,
LAUSD
should
communicate
expectations
of
SBAC
result
usage
in
principal
evaluations
as
well.
LAUSD
should
gather
information
regarding
what
devices
and
other
practices
best
serve
its
students
during
testing.
In
light
of
the
diverse
resources
available
across
the
district,
LAUSD
should
run
a
limited
number
of
testes
to
compare
different
devices
and
achievement
on
practice
tests.
LAUSD
should
also
consider
how
the
testings
interference
with
instruction
can
be
minimized.
This
information
should
inform
future
CCTP
decisions.
III.P.
e-Books
and
e-Textbooks
Findings
It
was
disappointing
to
learn
that
Instruction
chose
not
to
actively
pursue
e-
Textbooks,
because
it
preferred
digital
curricula
constructed
with
the
CCSS
explicitly
in
mind.
It
will
likely
take
years
before
CCSS-aligned
digital
curricula
are
available
for
many
of
LAUSDs
course
offerings.
The
Committee
had
repeatedly
asked
Instruction
what
would
be
involved
in
putting
existing
textbooks
into
an
electronic
format,
including
any
issues
of
formatting
and
license
fees.
Finally,
at
the
Committees
last
meeting,
Mr.
Loera
told
the
Committee
that
substitution
was
not
Instructions
goal,
rather
it
wanted
higher
level
technological
integration
consisting
of
augmentation,
modification,
and
ultimately
redefinition.
More
importantly,
Mr.
Loera
reported
that
LAUSD
does
not
own
the
digital
licenses
to
its
existing
textbooks,
and
that
LAUSD
would
have
to
essentially
re-purchase
those
if
it
wanted
to
digitize
them.
The
Committee
contends
that
not
everything
needs
to
be
built
from
the
ground
up
substitution
is
certainly
no
worse
than
what
LAUSD
has
now.
One
of
the
great
promises
(and
selling
points)
of
the
one-to-one
initiative
was
that
devices
could
function
as
e-readers
and
eliminate
the
need
for
bulky
textbooks.
This
remains
a
compelling
objective.
In
the
short-term,
the
iPads
will
be
adding
approximately
three
pounds
to
each
students
backpack.
Students
should
not
have
to
carry
backpacks
that
weigh
almost
as
much
as
they
do
while
they
wait
for
LAUSD
to
redefine
their
textbooks
with
to-be-developed
dynamic
digital
learning
materials.
103
Recommendations
LAUSD
should
strive
to
have
as
many
of
its
textbooks
digitized
as
reasonably
possible
by
the
time
Phase
3
begins.
III.Q.
LAUSD
Communications
Surrounding
the
CCTP
Findings
LAUSD
strives
to
issue
communications
regarding
the
CCTP.
LAUSD
has
created
a
CCTP
website
full
of
information
and
hard
copy
information
is
distributed
as
well.
The
Committee
commends
LAUSD
for
its
efforts.
The
Committee
found
that
some
communications
between
LAUSD
and
parents
could
be
improved.
For
example,
a
document
in
Spanish
had
not
been
appropriately
translated
into
Spanish
and
was
difficult
to
understand,
Parent
Liabilty
forms
were
inconsistent
and
modified
slowly,
and
initial
communications
regarding
CCTP
focused
less
on
how
parents
could
use
the
technology
to
help
their
students
and
more
on
the
general
purpose
of
CCTP.
In
addition,
the
Committee
found
that
internal
LAUSD
communications
regarding
CCTP
could
also
be
improved.
The
Committee
learned
that
schools
would
often
be
in
the
dark
regarding
such
matters
as
upcoming
device
delivery
dates,
testing
dates,
testing
procedures.
While
some
of
this
information
was
slow
to
get
to
LAUSDs
central
office,
it
appears
that
getting
information
from
the
central
office
to
school
sites
could
also
be
quite
slow.
The
creation
of
the
CCTP
intervention
matrix
and
school
memo
is
an
example
of
communication
development
and
distribution
taking
months:
development
began
in
January
2014
and
was
still
not
available
for
distribution
as
of
early
this
August
2014.
Recommendations
LAUSD
should
investigate
why
some
communications
take
months
to
craft
and
distribute
and
seek
to
make
the
process
more
efficient,
as
the
length
of
time
for
communications
seems
to
have
a
negative
impact
on
communications
between
LAUSDs
central
office,
school
sites,
employees,
and
parents.
LAUSD
should
use
internal
LAUSD
translators
to
translate
parent
communications
and
not
rely
on
translation
software.
LAUSD
should
seek
to
ensure
that
forms
are
consistent
throughout
the
district.
LAUSD
should
consider
having
small
groups
of
parents
and
students
review
important
communications
targeting
them
to
ensure
that
the
communications
are
easy
for
them
to
comprehend.
LAUSD
could
leverage
one-to-one
devices
in
communications
to
students
and
their
families,
through
e-flyering.
It
would
not
be
appropriate
for
all
communications,
because
of
the
student
as
intermediary,
but
LAUSD
already
relies
on
students
to
bring
home
physical
flyers.
LAUSD
could
save
paper
and
printing
time
by
instantly
104
sending
electronic
flyers
to
students
devices
and
asking
them
to
show
to
their
parents
at
home.
III.R.
Committee
Access
to
Information
Pearson
Content
Findings
The
Committee
first
asked
to
review
the
Pearson
curriculum
in
September
2013,
and
had
asked
if
it
could
be
loaded
onto
the
iPads
that
were
going
to
be
issued
to
Committee
Members
and
External
Representatives.
The
Committee
repeated
its
request
to
see
the
Pearson
curriculum
in
both
its
existing
form
and
in
the
form
reviewed
in
the
procurement
process
at
subsequent
meetings.
By
November
2013,
a
Pearson
representative
had
told
the
Chairs
office
that
they
would
need
Apples
permission
in
order
to
allow
anyone
on
the
Committee
to
see
the
curriculum
product.
Once
Apple
gave
that
permission,
it
was
disappointing
to
learn
that
the
cone
of
silence
around
a
new
RFP
was
being
invoked
to
deny
the
Committee
access
to
the
Pearson
curriculum
that
LAUSD
had
already
purchased.
Finally,
the
Chair
and
others
were
invited
by
LAUSD
to
attend
a
review
of
the
Pearson
curriculum
on
March
19,
2014,
but
such
review
was
moderated,
ostensibly
in
order
to
avoid
cone
of
silence
infractions,
and
it
was
not
part
of
the
Committees
official
business
and
not
open
to
the
public
or
press.75
The
Committees
inability
to
review
the
Pearson
curriculum
was
particularly
troublesome,
because
a
L.A.
Weekly
article
had
come
out
in
December
2013
claiming
that
the
paper
had
reviewed
a
more
extensive
demonstration
of
Pearsons
content
than
even
LAUSD
Boardmembers
had
seen.
Whether
or
not
that
claim
was
true,
despite
numerous
requests,
the
Chairs
office
had
not
received
access
to
the
Pearson
curriculum
whatsoever
beyond
the
initial
demonstration
lessons
until
the
March
19,
2014,
presentation
(and
was
only
afforded
a
90
minute
window
of
access
then).
Neither
the
Committee,
nor
the
Chair
in
her
capacity
as
a
Boardmember,
were
ever
able
to
study
what
the
review
panel
looked
at
in
scoring
the
Pearson
content
during
the
procurement
process,
as
the
initial
devices
used
for
scoring
were
returned
to
the
vendors.
Recommendations
While
the
Committee
and
Chair
were
offered
many
explanations
for
why
Pearson
content
was
unavailable
for
their
review,
the
Committee
suggests
that
LAUSD
try
to
avoid
a
similar
situation
in
the
future.
LAUSD
should
attempt
to
retain
evidence
of
curriculum
that
is
scored
particularly
the
top
contenders
and
make
that
information
publicly
accessible.
75
See
Process
Pearson
Curriculum
Demonstration,
supra.
105
LAUSD
should
seek
to
make
presentations
that
are
attended
by
Committee
Members
and
External
Representatives
for
a
Committee-related
purpose
open
to
the
press
to
foster
transparency.
LAUSD
should
encourage
the
flow
of
information
to
Committees
to
increase
their
effectiveness
and
allow
for
public
discussion
and
review
of
the
information.
Information
Available
to
the
Committee
Findings
Information
provided
to
BOE
committees
should
be
accurate
or
introduced
with
a
caveat.
No
one
expects
those
addressing
a
committee
to
have
the
answers
to
every
question.
Many
who
came
before
the
Committee
were
willing
to
say
when
they
did
not
know
an
answer
or
would
need
time
to
get
the
answer
and
return
the
information
to
the
Committee.
Throughout
its
term,
the
Committee
sought
information
regarding
LAUSDs
plans
regarding
CCTP-related
discipline.
The
Committee
was
told
at
first
that
such
plans
were
already
developed,
then
were
not
necessary
and,
finally
that
they
were
not
ready
to
be
publicly
released
yet.
Most
recently,
the
Committee
was
told
that
an
intervention
matrix
and
school
memo
would
be
available
by
the
beginning
of
the
2014-15
school
year.
The
Committee
was
quite
clear
that
it
wanted
to
see
these
plans,
whether
or
not
in
final
form
and
whether
or
not
revisions
were
being
drafted
that
might
fundamentally
alter
proposed
policy.
It
is
highly
problematic
that
1)
non-sensitive
documents
would
not
be
produced
to
a
Committee
of
the
Board
promptly
upon
its
request
and
2)
extremely
different
reasons
for
the
information
not
being
provided
would
be
offered.
Recommendations
Non-sensitive
documents
should
be
produced
for
BOE
committees
promptly
upon
request.
If
documents
are
going
to
take
a
significant
length
of
time
to
produce,
the
relevant
committee
should
be
given
an
estimated
time
of
delivery
and
some
information
as
to
what
is
the
cause
of
the
delay.
LAUSD
Personnel
Participation
in
Committee
Meetings
Findings
LAUSD
staff
participation
in
the
Committee
was
essential.
LAUSD
staff
devoted
countless
hours
to
answering
questions
and
providing
information
to
the
Committee
and
deserve
commendation.
Part
of
the
Committees
effectiveness
stemmed
from
being
able
to
ask
questions
and
raise
concerns
at
one
meeting
and
have
those
questions
answered
and
those
concerns
addressed
by
staff
then
or
at
a
subsequent
meeting.
In
addition,
the
Committees
ability
to
ask
clarifying
questions
106
and
delve
deeper
into
topics
was
dependent
upon
staff
being
present
at
meetings.
Unfortunately,
Mr.
Tucker
was
unavailable
for
the
Committees
final
initially-
scheduled
meeting
(i.e.
the
April
24,
2014,
meeting)
though
he
had
confirmed
his
availability
for
the
meeting
earlier.
The
Chair
scheduled
an
additional
meeting
for
May
28,
2014,
at
which
the
Committee
could
cover
the
substantial
remaining
questions
related
to
procurement,
among
other
things.
Procurement
provided
the
Committee
with
responses
to
certain
written
questions
but
nobody
from
Procurement
attended
the
May
meeting.
While
written
responses
to
questions
were
provided,
it
was
obvious
during
the
meeting
that
having
LAUSD
Procurement
staff
available
to
clarify
answers
and
respond
to
follow
up
questions
would
have
been
better.
The
Committee
appreciates
the
time
and
effort
expended
by
Mr.
Tucker
and
Procurement
staff
at
the
Committees
request.
However,
the
presence
of
staff
members
present
at
meetings
is
invaluable
in
facilitating
information
gathering,
even
where
written
answers
have
been
provided.
Occasionally,
LAUSD
personnel
were
on
the
agenda
to
present,
showed
up
for
meetings,
and
their
agenda
item
was
pushed
to
a
subsequent
meeting.
This
happened
more
frequently
as
the
Committee
was
winding
down
and
trying
to
cover
large
swaths
of
topics
and
questions.
While
the
Chair
always
asked
the
staff
members
permission
to
move
their
agenda
item
to
a
later
meeting,
she
acknowledges
the
significant
inconvenience
that
this
must
have
been
for
the
staff
in
question.
Recommendations
LAUSD
should
dedicate
appropriate
LAUSD
staff
to
attendance
at
BOE
Committees
recognizing
that
it
will
be
a
significant
time
commitment
-
particularly
when
the
topic
is
a
high
interest
topic
and
involves
the
work
of
numerous
divisions.
The
BOE
Committee
Chairs
should
plan
agendas
in
a
manner
that
provides
time
for
follow
up
information
and
answers
to
questions
asked
at
prior
meetings,
covers
new
topics
as
appropriate,
and
does
not
lead
to
the
pushing
off
of
agenda
items
to
subsequent
dates
barring
an
emergency.
III.S.
Termination
of
the
Committee
Findings
At
the
March
5,
2014,
Committee
meeting,
the
Chair
announced
that
the
Committee
was
being
wound
down
and
would
be
preparing
a
Committee
report
following
the
final
meeting,
which
was
then
expected
in
April.
It
was
concerning
that
the
Committee
was
being
terminated
at
such
an
early
stage
in
the
project,
as
there
was
still
much
work
to
be
done
and
many
questions
remained
unanswered.
The
Committee
served
as
a
vital
avenue
for
information
to
flow
to
and
from
the
public,
whose
dollars
and
youth
were
ultimately
at
stake.
The
Chair
her
disappointment,
but
pointed
out
that
the
Committee
may
be
at
the
point
that
it
107
could
meet
every
other
month
instead
of
monthly.
At
the
July
2014
Board
meeting,
Board
President
Richard
Vladovic
said
that
the
Technology
Committee
could
continue
as
a
subcommittee
of
the
Curriculum,
Instruction,
and
Assessment
Committee
chaired
by
Boardmember
Ratliff.
In
light
of
the
ongoing
significance
and
cost
of
the
CCTP,
the
Committee
commends
Dr.
Vladovics
decision.
Recommendations
As
the
Committee
is
now
a
Technology
subcommittee
of
the
Curriculum,
Instruction,
and
Assessment
Committee,
the
Chair
must
determine
how
that
will
work
operationally,
recruit
subcommittee
members
and
external
representatives,
and
publish
meeting
dates.
It
is
crucial
that
LAUSD
have
a
body
that
can
thoroughly
examine
the
results
of
external
evaluations
before
LAUSD
proceeds
with
any
district-wide
rollout
of
the
CCTP.
108