Technology Audit Report

Prepared for:
Northbridge Public Schools

Submitted by:
CTO to Go
Annamaria Schrimpf
Jean Tower
April 8, 2011

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
Executive Summary................................................................................................. 3
Process .................................................................................................................... 5
Findings by Area
Infrastructure ............................................................................................ 10
Staffing ...................................................................................................... 16
Teaching & Learning ................................................................................. 20
Leadership ................................................................................................. 26
Appendix A Survey Questions ............................................................................ 28
Appendix B Data Systems .................................................................................. 39

This Technology Audit Report by Jean Tower & Annamaria Schrimpf is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Introduction
CTO to Go was engaged by the Northbridge Public Schools to conduct an audit of the district
technology program. The audit was conducted by Jean Tower and Annamaria Schrimpf of CTO
to Go. A technology audit is the process of collecting and evaluating evidence to determine
whether a technology system allows organizational goals to be achieved effectively. Our audit
will address several components of the technology program, with a focus on answering the two
questions below.
How do the current systems impact student achievement?
How effectively do current systems support staff?
In this report, we will describe our findings and will make recommendations to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the technology department, in order to best serve students and
staff. This audit includes a survey of all staff, interviews with members of the technology
department and selected administrators and staff, and a review of documents.
The report is presented in three main sections: an executive summary, a description of the
process, and the findings of the study. The findings are divided into the major areas of
infrastructure, staffing, teaching and learning, and leadership.
Based on our own professional practice along with reputable research about technology in
schools, we place a high value on integrating technology into the curriculum and on using
technology to address core learning goals that the school district has otherwise identified as
important to the mission of the school district. To accomplish this effectively, many essential
conditions should be met.
The enGauge framework, developed by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
(NCREL) and the METIRI Group, says that six essential conditions have to exist in school districts
for truly effective use of technology to take place. The six conditions are in the dimensions of
vision, effective practice, equity, leadership, access, and educator proficiency. The
Massachusetts state technology plan guidelines are based in part on the School Technology and
Readiness (STaR) Chart. This framework lists the essential ingredients as teaching and learning,
educator preparation and development, administration and support services, and infrastructure
for technology. Our audit framework uses the best of both of these taxonomies.
Crosswalk:
EnGauge
effective practice
educator proficiency
vision & leadership
Access & equity

Page 1 of 39

MA STaR Chart
teaching and learning
educator preparation and development
administration and support services
infrastructure for technology

Technology Audit

Audit
teaching and learning
leadership & staffing
infrastructure

CTO to Go

For each of the four areas in which we gathered data, we developed the following broad
questions that guided our inquiry.
Infrastructure
Do students and staff have robust and equitable access to reliable and fast technology, anytime
and anywhere? Is the access adequate to support teaching and learning? Are there computer
labs, mobile labs, classroom computers and laptops for teachers? Is there access to digital tools
beyond computers interactive white boards, document cameras, video cameras, and
projectors?
Staffing
Do teachers have access to technology coaches during planning and while teaching? Is there a
fully-functional and well-supported technology department that maintains systems and
provides coordinated services and curriculum support? Does the technology staff function as a
cohesive unit that supports both of the functions of administration and teaching and learning?
Teaching and Learning
Are teachers modeling technology learning and growth in a Professional Learning Community?
Are educators prepared to use technology for teaching and learning? Are educators skilled in
creating learning environments to capitalize on the impact that technology has on learning? Is
technology fully integrated throughout curriculum, instruction, and assessment, in order to
ensure 21st century outcomes?
Leadership
Has the district developed a vision that guides the implementation of technology? Is the vision
widely known and shared by all and is it regularly evaluated, refocused, and revised? Are all
stakeholders committed to the vision? Does the vision drive planning, and are both focused on
educational outputs and instructional goals? Do administrators recognize exemplary use of
technology in instruction and do they provide constructive feedback to teachers on their
technology use? Is there a coordinated funding strategy to meet the goals of the technology
plan?
In addition to the broad questions above, we looked for alignment and compliance with
Massachusetts state technology planning guidelines (Local Technology Plan Guidelines,
www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/standards/itstand.pdf) and looked for evidence to help answer the
specific questions central to this investigation.
How do the current systems impact student achievement?
How effectively do current systems support staff?

Page 2 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Executive Summary
Annamaria Schrimpf and Jean Tower of CTO to Go conducted a technology audit for the
Northbridge Public Schools from February through April of 2011. Throughout the process, we
were impressed by the firm commitment of many in the school system to improve academic
achievement and the 21st century skills of students. In fact, one of the stated District Goals of
the Northbridge Public Schools is, To seamlessly integrate technology across all classrooms in
order to effectively prepare students for the 21st Century.
We found many commendable practices and successful implementations of technology, and
provide recommendations in infrastructure, staffing, teaching and learning, and leadership to
help the district approach their goal of effectively preparing students for the 21st century.
We recommend a computer replacement cycle of five years and improving the student to
computer ratio at all levels. The district has improved internet bandwidth and should continue
to do so. We suggest a rigorous and comprehensive review of the use of open source software,
paying close attention to the total cost of ownership. In addition, one of the most important
things that must happen in the area of infrastructure is to develop a plan that is based on the
shared vision of educators, parents, and community members. Infrastructure decisions should
be clearly aligned to district strategic goals.
A critical component of technology in schools is staffing. There must be people who maintain
the systems, support users, and guide the vision. We find that the technology department in
Northbridge is heavily weighted toward technical support. We recommend that the district
reorganizes the technology department in order to provide more balance. Increasing
instructional support and providing leadership for the department are critical needs in order to
continue to make progress and will bring the district closer to compliance with state standards.
In the reorganization process, it will be important to provide cross-training and to share
information outside of the department.
A Snapshot of Staffing 2002 Versus Today
2002
1 FTE Technology Director
1 FTE Information Systems Manager
3 FTE Instructional Technology Specialists
3 FTE Technology Systems
1 FTE Secretarial/Administrative Support

Today
0 FTE Technology Director
1 FTE Information Systems Manager
1 FTE Instructional Technology Specialist
3 FTE Technology Systems
0 FTE Secretarial/Administrative Support

The Massachusetts Teacher Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT) and the National Educational
Technology Standards (NETs) for teachers are guiding documents that clearly outline the
recommended proficiency levels for teachers. We recommend that the district provide more
professional development (PD), co-teaching, coaching, and support opportunities for teachers,
because research shows that there is a direct correlation between teacher skills and comfort
level and student use of technology in schools. The most efficient way to ensure 21st century

Page 3 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

skills for students is through educators with 21st century skills. We also suggest that the
coordination and facilitation provided by a district-wide Coordinator or Technology Director will
help to focus technology projects and initiatives on learning outcomes.
The district is committed to providing 21st century learning environments, but among staff,
there is confusion and a lack of clarity about the vision. People outside of the technology
department lacked awareness of the Technology Plan. We suggest that the district convene a
task force to write a comprehensive, long-term technology plan. The task force should include a
school committee members, administrators, teachers, and technology personnel.
Further documentation to support these recommendations is found in the sections that follow.
In each section, the report also commends the existing achievements in these areas.

Page 4 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Process
This audit relies on data gathered through staff surveys, staff interviews, and a review of district
documents.
The timetable of the audit appears below.
Audit benchmarks
Develop customized online teacher survey
Preview and approve survey
Deploy survey
Conduct onsite interviews
Review existing documentation
Analyze surveys and interviews
Draft final report
Submission of final technology audit
Present findings to Interviewed Staff
Present findings at School Committee
Meeting

Responsibility
Consultants
Various Staff
Superintendent/Leadership
Consultants
Consultants
Consultants
Consultants
Consultants
Consultants
Consultants

Target dates
February 25, 2011
February 25, 2011
March 3-7
March 10, 2011
March 11-April 4
March 11-April 4
March 11-April 4
April 8, 2011
April 15, 2011
April 2011

The survey was developed by CTO to Go, and was refined with feedback from several staff
members who piloted it. The survey was an online instrument and administered solely online.
An email informing staff about the survey and asking them to complete it was sent by the
superintendent to all staff, and principals followed up with reminders. From a possible 369 staff
members, 227 completed the survey, for a response rate of 61%.

Page 5 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

School or Building
Northbridge Elementary School
Balmer School
Northbridge Middle School
Northbridge High School
Multiple Buildings
Central Office
Teaching Capacity
Classroom Teacher
Math Teacher
Science Teacher
English Teacher
Social Studies Teacher
World Languages Teacher
Health/Phys Ed Teacher
Fine & Performing Arts Teacher
Related Arts Teacher
Library Media Specialist
Special Educator
Teaching/Instructional Assistant
Title I

Staff at
Location
81
79
101
87
9
12

Staff
Response
Respondents Percent
46
56.8%
45
57%
54
53.5%
59
67.8%
9
100%
14
102%

Staff
Respondents
64
6
8
3
7
4
3
5
0
3
25
28
4

Response
Percent
40.0%
3.8%
5.0%
1.9%
4.4%
2.5%
1.9%
3.1%
0.0%
1.9%
15.6%
17.5%
2.5%

Survey results are referenced in the relevant sections under findings.

Annamaria Schrimpf and Jean Tower of CTO to Go spent a day interviewing staff. The interviews
were each about an hour long. Everyone was friendly, helpful, and sharing and the
conversations were informative. We talked about the responsiveness of the technology team,
how everyone worked together, and heard about schedules, what works well, and what people
might like to see improved. It would not be possible to list every question and response here,
but below are some representative questions that initiated conversations.
Among other things, we asked the technology team members to describe their typical work
days, how they coordinated their work, where their primary location was, how they
communicated to others about the status of projects, who set priorities for their work, and
what kind of reporting they did on a regular basis and to whom. We also asked what they
thought they did well (as a team), what the areas of challenge were, and what their frustrations
were. We had read the technology reports before coming to the school district, but we also
asked clarifying questions about the infrastructure computers and networks. These
conversations helped to paint a more complete picture of the technology infrastructure and the
work flow of the department.

Page 6 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

We asked technology teachers about their typical work day, their schedules, how well the
infrastructure met the needs of students and teachers, and many questions about the
curriculum.
Administrators and others were asked similar questions about their day, how they interacted
with technology and members of the technology department and whether their technology
needs, as well as the needs of teachers and students, were being met.
Everyone was asked what was going well with technology and what would be at the top of their
wish list in working toward an ideal solution. We also asked most interviewees to tell us what
the vision for technology in the district was and who owned that vision and was the
designated leader of it.

Page 7 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

On Site Interviews
March 10, 2011, interviews were conducted. The staff members listed below each met with one
or both of the consultants.
Staff Interviewed:
Lisa Adams, Executive Assistant to the Superintendent
Phil Anderson, Technology Teacher, Northbridge High School
Barbara Columbus, Technology Teacher, Northbridge High School
Steve DiMare, Network Manager
Steve Falconer, Systems Administrator
Mike Gauthier, Northbridge High School Principal
Lisa Gogolinski, Technology Teacher, Northbridge Middle School
Jill Healy, Northbridge Elementary School Principal
Gene LaCava, Information Systems Manager
Anna Larson, Technology Teacher Balmer and Northbridge Elementary (substitute for
Michele Shorten)
Steve McKinstry, Technology Support Specialist
Mary Ellen Mega, Northbridge Middle School Principal
Kristi Meyer, Supervisor of Administrative Services
Peter Ritter, K-12 Instructional Technology Specialist
Nancy Spitulnik, Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning
Cathy Stanton, Director of Pupil Personnel Services
Melissa Walker, Business Manager
John Zywien, Balmer Principal
Documents Reviewed
Annual technology plan submitted by Northbridge Public Schools to the Massachusetts
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (January 2011)
District Three-Year Technology Plan 2010-2013
High School Program of Studies
Inventory of data systems in use
List of technology staff and their job descriptions
FY 11 Budget
Northbridge Public Schools web site
District Improvement Plan 2010-2013

Page 8 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Staff Surveys
In analyzing the survey results, we looked the raw data, charts derived from the data, and
comments that individuals shared in the open-ended responses.
Some highlights of the survey responses are:
The district goal, Increase of technology to improve and expand teaching and learning,
had the highest response frequency as the most important.
Slow computers was often indicated as a barrier to effective technology use.*
Unreliable connectivity was often indicated as a barrier to effective technology use.
There were requests for more Instructional Technology Specialist support time.
Teachers are reluctant to assign online homework due to lack of student connectivity at
home.
Technology proficiency level was higher in the more basic skills, like word processing
and email. At the secondary level, more teachers felt more comfortable with the web
2.0 tools.
Vertical and horizontal alignment for integration/technology literacy was not evident.
The use of technology for data analysis was more widespread at the middle and high
school levels.
Responses indicated a limited use of Moodle.
39% of respondents indicated that it was easy for them to update a web page.
*NOTE: Question 26. Using a scale of 1 to 5, please rate the occurrence of these factors as OBSTACLES OR
HINDERANCES to using technology at your school/at work. (1=this is always a factor and 5=this is not a factor)

Page 9 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Findings
The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) provides
technology planning guidelines for school districts. The Local Technology Plan Guidelines are
based on the on the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart. The DESE states, These
guidelines are not mandated but rather recommended benchmarks for districts to meet by the
end of the school year 2014- 2015. The Department will use these guidelines to gauge the
progress of districts' implementation in order to approve their technology plans annually. The
guide is an effective framework to use in planning and in measuring progress toward meeting
the goals of your plan. It is comprehensive, with suggested standards in several areas:
Benchmark 1: Commitment to a Clear Vision and Implementation Strategies
Benchmark 2: Technology Integration and Literacy
Benchmark 3: Technology Professional Development
Benchmark 4: Accessibility of Technology
Benchmark 5: Virtual Learning and Communications
Benchmark 6: Safety, Security, and Data Retention
Our findings will often refer back to some of the specific benchmarks outlined in the state
planning document, in particular, assessing whether Northbridge has met, has partially met, or
is not meeting the standards. The full document, Local Technology Plan Guidelines, can be
found on the DESE web site at: www.doe.mass.edu/edtech/standards/itstand.pdf.

Findings: Infrastructure
Infrastructure Guiding Questions
Do students and staff have robust and equitable access to reliable and fast technology, anytime
and anywhere? Is the access adequate to support teaching and learning? Are there computer
labs, mobile labs, classroom computers and laptops for teachers? Is there access to digital tools
beyond computers interactive white boards, document cameras, video cameras, and
projectors?

Commendations
In the area of infrastructure, there is extensive evidence that the district has a commitment to
providing technology to students and staff. This is seen in the number of computers at each
school, the ratio of students to computers, the spread of interactive whiteboard technology
(SmartBoards) throughout the district, the improvements to bandwidth that have been made,
and the initiative to improve wireless connectivity.

Page 10 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

The table below shows the number of computers at each school and the ratio of student to
computer, based on the data that the district reported to the DESE, using data captured as of
June 30, 2010.
Location
Northbridge High School
Northbridge Middle School
Balmer Elementary School
Northbridge Elementary School

Number
Computers
263
213
118
107

Ratio Students to
Computers
2.54 to 1
3.77 to 1
5.27 to 1
5.35 to 1

The table below shows how many computers were purchased in the current year, and in each
of the four previous fiscal years. The year the computer was purchased does not necessarily
represent the actual age of the computer. The majority of the district computers are
refurbished, used computers.

Fiscal
Year
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11

Number of
Computers
Purchased
39
145
99
208
202
693

The table below shows the number of SmartBoards and projectors at each building. Please note
that each SmartBoard includes a projector, and that the number of projectors (column 3)
represents those in addition to the SmartBoard set-ups.
Location
Northbridge High School
Northbridge Middle School
Balmer Elementary School
Northbridge Elementary
School

Number
Number StandSmartBoards/Projector alone Projectors
18
13
22
7
12
5
3
4

Number
Classrooms
52
62
33
39

The backbone for the Wide Area Network is fiber, a generally reliable and upgradeable
resource. In the table below is a description of the wide area network and Internet connections,
as provided to us by the technology staff.

Page 11 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Northbridge Middle School has a direct connection to the Internet. It runs over
Charter fiber, provided by MEC at 5 Mbps full duplex.
Balmer Elementary and Northbridge Elementary Schools do not have direct
connections to the Internet. Their traffic is routed across the wide area network
(WAN) and goes to the internet through the NMS connection.
Northbridge High School has a direct connection to the Internet. It runs over
Charter fiber, provided by MEC at 5 Mbps full duplex.
Northbridge Public Schools WAN speeds are minimum 100 MB and maximum 1
GB. The primary connection to the Internet is through one of two connections, as
described above.
Students and staff have access to storage on file servers which are backed up regularly.
The district provides a single login for the network, Moodle, and Drupal.
The project to provide more ubiquitous wireless coverage is in process.
Data is automatically transferred from iPass to Nutrikids and ConnectEd, a process which avoids
data inconsistencies between the systems, and reduces data entry.
The district provides access to fully vendor-supported, enterprise quality, software for many
services, such as special education software, parent notification system, student information
system, email, content filtering, archiving, and spam blocking.
The district provides a dependable system of servers, switches, cabling, and routers to provide
a robust infrastructure.
The district employs remote desktop access, which can facilitate end-user support and
maintenance.

Recommendations
Improve Student to Computer Ratio
Benchmark 4-A-1: By 2014-2015, the district has an average ratio of one high-capacity, Internetconnected computer for each student.
To reach this benchmark Northbridge needs to commit a regular and reliable funding source to
increase the number of computers at each school.
Replace Aging Computers
Benchmark 4-A-6: The district has established a computer replacement cycle of five years or
less.
In order to reach this benchmark Northbridge must adopt a computer replacement cycle and
commit a regular and reliable funding source to replace aging computers.

Page 12 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Provide Laptop Computers to Professional Staff Members

It is our recommendation to assign a laptop to each professional staff member, providing access
and ease of use during and after the school day to enable teachers to develop lessons,
collaborate with colleagues and other such opportunities that will increase technology
proficiency levels.
Improve Internal Network Connectivity
In specific instances, especially at the High School, it was reported that there are issues with
internal network wiring. The technology support team explained the issue to us as being caused
by the wiring below the floor being compromised over time by cleaning processes. There has
been a solution successfully piloted, and further network cable repair is a project that is
currently delayed for funding.
Improve Internet Connection Speeds
Benchmark 4-B-2: The district provides an external Internet connection to the Internet Service
Provider (ISP) of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students/staff.
The district has made progress to date, and should continue to improve internet bandwidth.
While 100 Mbps may seem like a reach, it would still be a wise choice to increase speeds by
some achievable increment annually. The current speed of 5 Mbps is the slowest speed that
typical home cable Internet service providers offer. For example, Comcast and RCN both offer
Internet connection speeds of 5, 10, or 20 Mbps to their residential customers. As more of the
school resources become Internet-based and cloud-based, the speed of the connection to the
Internet becomes even more critical to a satisfactory user experience.
Develop a Decision Framework for Purchasing Software
Benchmark 1-D-2: The budget includes staffing, infrastructure, hardware, software applications,
professional development, support, and contracted services.
While the district does provide many commercially available software solutions with user
support, maintenance, and documentation, it also utilizes many open source software
solutions. Examples of these are: Open Office, Koha library software, Moodle integrated elearning environment, Drupal website software, and Liberum help desk software. Certainly the
motivation behind implementing open source software solutions is to be cost-effective, but
there are many factors that need to be taken into account when calculating the cost of
software solutions. The total cost of ownership (TCO) for open source software needs to take
into account the man-hours required to configure, maintain, support, and train users. The
decision framework should also include user feedback. For example, any move to implement
open-source software should first include a test with a group of users and user feedback should
be counted into the equation. In addition, most TCO frameworks include administrative costs,
license costs, deployment and configuration, hardware and software updates, training and
development, maintenance, technical support, compatibility issues within and outside of the
organization, professional development, and the availability of resources not included "in the
box." Such resources would be lesson plans and documents found on the Internet and
developed by colleagues inside or outside of the district.
It is the opinion of the auditors that the school district may have too many open source
software solutions for a small technology department to support effectively. In situations like
Page 13 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

this, technology support teams often spend a disproportionate amount of time supporting
free software. In particular, Open Office was said to be unpopular among staff, and
administrators told us about difficulties they have in sharing documents with staff. The
situation should be reviewed closely and a decision made that includes the input of all
stakeholders.
Continue to Improve Wireless Coverage
Benchmark 4-B-1: The district provides connectivity to the Internet for all computers in all
classrooms in all schools, including wireless connectivity.
The current trend in technology is toward more mobile computing. In order to take full
advantage of this trend, the school district will have to provide wireless connectivity throughout
the buildings. In fact, there is a plan in place to continue the next phase of wireless
implementation.
Tend to the Repository of Shared Documents
One issue that several users brought to our attention is that finding district and school
documents can be confusing. Users were not sure whether to look on the web, in First Class, or
in Moodle. In addition, there are older and conflicting documents that need to be purged from
these shared areas. It is recommended to standardize on one location for these shared
documents so that everyone knows how to access them.
Disseminate Clearly Articulated Plan for 21st Century Classrooms
Benchmark 4-A-5: The district provides technology-rich classrooms, with access to devices such
as digital projectors, electronic whiteboards, and student response systems.
Clearly the district is committed to providing 21st century classrooms. This is evidenced by their
recent investment in interactive whiteboard technology. However, in speaking with technology
staff and administrators, it was evident that not everyone fully understood the initiative. Such
understanding is necessary for widespread buy-in and support. The plan to further implement
21st century classrooms should include district staff at all levels and the purpose of the plan
along with the plan itself should be communicated extensively.
Protect District Data and Systems
Every technology system should have a continuity plan should disaster strike. Disaster can be as
localized as a flood, fire, or accidental sprinkler system deployment, or as big as an earthquake.
In any event, the district should develop a backup and disaster recovery plan to ensure
continuity of business and systems. Such a plan should also address the storage of key
information. A person or group of people at Central Office has to be the keeper of all system
logins and passwords, and should be able to view, at the administrative level, any system that
belongs to the school district, including the help desk, the inventory database, the filtering
policies, and all cloud-based systems. The superintendent, as the designated keeper of records
by regulation, should have these records.

Summary
The school district is obviously committed to providing a robust and reliable technology
infrastructure. However, work remains to be done.

Page 14 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

The district needs to review the plan to refresh computers, and to continue to work toward
improving the student to computer ratio at all levels. For all schools and districts, it is clear that
one pressing infrastructure need is to provide fast and robust networks with the fastest
Internet connection that districts can afford. As more software, resources, and storage move to
the cloud, Internet bandwidth becomes an even more pressing issue.
It is challenging to prioritize the recommendations made in this section. However, based on our
knowledge of the district, our top priorities are:

Improve student to computer ratio

Adopt a computer refresh cycle of five years, restoring a laptop assigned to each teacher
Continue to improve the bandwidth of the Internet connection
Review the use of open-source software.

In addition, one of the most important things that has to happen in planning for infrastructure,
is to develop a plan that is based on the shared vision of educators, parents, and community
members. The plan should have, at its core, a commitment to improving teaching and learning.
Every infrastructure improvement should be directly related to a goal that is centered on
teaching and learning or on the productivity and efficiency of the Northbridge Public Schools
staff. The absence of a leader for the Technology Department makes it difficult for
infrastructure decisions to reflect the needs of students and staff as agreed upon by a wideranging stakeholder group. Instead, such decisions are being made by the technology support
team, who naturally, have a technical perspective. While a technical perspective is vital in
making such decisions, it must be balanced with an educators perspective one that
understands more genuinely the needs of students and staff, and goals for teaching and
learning.

Page 15 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Findings: Staffing
Staffing Guiding Questions
Do teachers have access to coaches during planning and while teaching? Is there a fullyfunctional and well-supported information technology department that maintains systems and
provides coordinated services and curriculum support? Does the technology staff function as a
cohesive unit that supports both of the functions of administration and teaching and learning?
The state technology plan guidelines describe recommended minimum staffing levels in a
variety of roles. There are four benchmarks that address staffing:
Benchmark 2-C-1: The district has a district-level technology director/coordinator.
Benchmark 2-C-2: The district provides one FTE instructional technology specialist per 60-120
instructional staff to coach and model.
Benchmark 4-E-3: The district provides at least one FTE person to support 400 computers.
Technical support can be provided by dedicated staff or contracted services.
Benchmark 2-C-3: The district has staff specifically dedicated to data management and
assessment.

Commendations
The district provides the technical support of three full-time staff members for the
approximately 700 computers in the district, thus providing one FTE per approximately 233
computers. This exceeds the state guidelines.
According to the staff surveyed, when they enter tickets in the help-desk, the ticket is most
often addressed within a day (see graph below).

Page 16 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Help Desk System Summary, 3/23/10 - 3/23/11, as reported by the technology support team.
1863 total tickets closed
52,370 minutes to complete those tickets.
146
were account issues
425
Hardware
51
Instructional Technology
132
iPass
101
Moodle
257
Network
94
New Software/Hardware
85
password resets
39
Smart Board related
326
Software Issues
75
Teacher Website
51
Training issue/requests
35
Technology use
2
VoIP
40
Website changes/info
This breakdown shows that the technicians address a wide variety of problems. Teachers report
that issues entered into the help desk system are often resolved within a day. This is
commendable. They report that they cleared 1863 tickets in a year and it took 52,370 minutes
to clear the tickets. 52,370 minutes is the equivalent of 109 eight-hour days. The auditors
commend such clear record keeping and the ability to report by category. Since not all requests
are entered into the Help Desk system, this represents only a portion of the work done.
Increasing the use of the Help Desk system would allow for more efficient deployment of staff
and more accurate reporting.
The district recognizes the importance of Instructional Technology Specialist support, and there
is one person (one FTE) in this role.
The district has a full-time person (one FTE), Information Systems Manager, whose role is to
provide data management and data compliance for state reporting. In addition, Human
Resources and the information systems manager work closely together to collaborate on staff
data and accounts and are creating a form to streamline process.
Benchmark 2-C-3: The district has staff specifically dedicated to data management and
assessment.
The district has Technology Teachers at each of the schools so that students have opportunities
for direct instruction in technology skills.

Page 17 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Recommendations
Add Instructional Technology Specialist
Benchmark 2-C-2: The district provides one FTE instructional technology specialist per 60-120
instructional staff to coach and model.
Northbridge Public Schools currently has only one FTE Instructional Technology Specialist, and
thus does not meet this benchmark. It is recommended, based on current staffing levels, to
have two to three instructional technology specialists. During interviews, the technology
support team agreed that more Instructional Technology Specialist availability would help drive
instructional use.
Distribute Responsibility for Data Integrity
Currently the Information Systems Manager submits data to the DESE, gets the error report,
and then directly makes corrections in iPass. We recommend that the error reports are
distributed to person/people responsible for data entry to make corrections. This will, over
time, improve data integrity and accuracy. Additionally, we suggest that the job now titled,
Information Systems Manager, could be reworked slightly to become, Data Compliance
Specialist, and this could save the district money.
Add a Coordinator/Director Position
Benchmark 2-C-1: The district has a district-level technology director/coordinator.
Northbridge Public Schools currently has no one unambiguously in a technology leadership role.
CoSN (www.cosn.org) and other organizations that study technology leadership say that it is
critical to have a leader who has both technical expertise and a solid educational foundation.
Technology decisions should be made reflecting a strong understanding of the educational
environment. During interviews, the technology support team said that the lack of an
administrative leader in the department was a gap they felt should be closed.
Provide Cross-Training, Share Information Outside of Technology Department
During our conversations with both administrators and technology support team, it was learned
that there are many areas of technical knowledge that are the exclusive domain of one support
person. The district should require cross-training. Knowledge of a system should not reside with
a single person. This will build redundancy of capabilities and knowledge to ensure efficiency,
the ability to fill in for one another, and continuity of operations should anyone leave the
employ of the schools.
Reorganize Structure of Technology Department
One of the questions we had in mind during the audit was, Does the technology staff function
as a cohesive unit that supports both of the functions of administration and teaching and
learning? We find that the department is heavily weighted toward the technical side, creating
an imbalance that leaves educators fewer opportunities to work with an instructional coach or
colleague to provide professional development. The department lacks direct and
comprehensive leadership. In addition, the current structure does not facilitate a strong sense
of accountability, collaboration, or communication. The regular reporting mechanisms may not
be sufficient to ensure optimum collaboration and efficiency.

Page 18 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Currently, the Assistant Superintendent meets with the Instructional Technology Specialist on a
regular basis. The Superintendent meets with the technology support team monthly. There is a
liaison from the technology support team who attends the district leadership team meetings.
Goal setting meetings are held by the Superintendent with each member of the technology
support team at the beginning of the school year. Additionally, the budget dictates some of the
goals for the year. On a typical day, given the expertise of the individuals and the technical
issues that arise, they may be setting their own priorities. Department effectiveness could be
improved with a clear and well-defined vision backed by over-arching priorities, and tighter
communication practices.

Summary
School districts seldom have the luxury of having it all difficult decisions are made all the
time (in all of our districts) between competing priorities. It appears that over time, decisions
about staffing in technology have leaned a little more toward the technical strand rather than
toward user support and professional development. The result for the Northbridge Public
Schools technology department is that there is an imbalance in that staffing and there are now
unmet needs for instructional technology support and leadership. This is especially true given
the recent renewed commitment to 21st century, digital classrooms, and professional
development the teachers will need to update their skills and practice. We suggest that the
district reorganize the department in order to provide for those unmet needs. There are
solutions that the district could use in order to begin to make strides without great costs in year
one. For example, the district could hire a second instructional technology specialist whose role
is both instructional technology support and department coordination. There could be a longterm goal on the part of the school department that if the person is successful in these roles the
job could shift over time towards more coordination and leadership.
The highest priorities under staffing are:

Provide Technology Department Leadership through Coordinator or Director Role.

Add an Instructional Technology Specialist.
Reorganize the structure of the Technology Department.
Provide cross-training and sharing information outside of the department.

Page 19 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Findings: Teaching & Learning

Teaching and Learning Guiding Questions
Are teachers modeling technology learning and growth in a Professional Learning Community?
Are educators prepared to use technology for teaching and learning? Are educators skilled in
creating learning environments to capitalize on the impact that technology has on learning? Is
technology fully integrated throughout curriculum, instruction, and assessment, in order to
ensure 21st century outcomes?

Commendations
All new hires participate in a 90-minute orientation in technology addressing email, iPass and
Moodle.
There is a district-wide Instructional Technology Specialist who collaborates with teachers to
integrate technology into their lessons.
The central office staff felt proficient in the use of the software programs they use relative to
their functions in the organization.
The principals interviewed were supportive of technology integration within their school
buildings.
The middle school program, under the guidance of the Technology Teacher, covers a wide array
of technology topics in Grades 5-8. The technology teachers outline that was shared during the
interview clearly articulates the Massachusetts (DESE) Technology Literacy Standards that are
being taught. Students are experiencing a multitude of web 2.0 during these valuable classes.
The technology topics and projects the students were doing were very impressive. The
instructions and guides for the students are available through the Moodle server.
Benchmark 2-B-1: At least 90% of eighth grade students show proficiency in all the
Massachusetts Technology Literacy Standards and Expectations for grade eight.
Students are required to take two technology electives at the high school as a graduation
requirement. This requirement ensures that students graduate the Northbridge School District
with some skills and knowledge relating to technology.
The district-wide SmartBoard initiative is in support of 21st century classrooms, and teaching
and learning.

Recommendations
Provide Focused and Meaningful Professional Development Opportunities
Benchmark 3-C: Professional development planning includes an assessment of district and
teachers' needs. The assessment is based on the competencies listed in the Massachusetts
Technology Self-Assessment Tool.
Although the majority of the central office staff felt proficient with the use of most of the
software programs, they felt that more structured training for the MUNIS program would
enable them to use the full functionality of the program.

Page 20 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Currently there are multiple areas that resources are found for the organization which includes
folders in First Class, shared folder on network, Moodle server with no consistency, direction or
routine purging of documents maintained. It is suggested to use one conduit to share common
forms, curriculum guides, and other district/school.
We recommend that the district schedule training for administrators including principals to use
resources available both in the district and on the web to optimize efficiency and streamline
processes. In addition, training should be provided to expand the use of First Class as a
collaborative tool throughout the organization.
Hire a District-level Technology Director/Coordinator
Benchmark 2-C-1: The district has a district-level technology director/coordinator.
There is little or no evidence of horizontal or vertical alignment for PK-8 technology
classes/curriculum. The technology teachers have little direction or guidance from any
administrator. Limited supervision regarding curriculum is provided at the building level, as
well. During the interview, it was stated that the technology teachers had met through their
own initiative a couple of times but not consistently. In order for the technology teachers to
build a cohesive program from Grades PK-12 they must have an opportunity to participate in
scheduled meeting times throughout the school year. These programs can impact the
development of the students 21st century skills. It is recommended that the guidance and
coordination of programs for Grades PK -12 be done by a district level technology
coordinator/director.
Coordinate the Purchase and Implementation of Assistive Technology
Benchmark 4-A-3: The district maximizes access to the general education curriculum for all
students, including students with disabilities, using universal design principles and assistive
technology devices.
The technology staff and the Special Education department should work closely together to
ensure that through technology, access to the curriculum is maximized for all students.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) should be considered when purchasing and implementing
technology resources.
Review and Enhance Technology Curriculum and Integration
It is the recommendation of the auditors to align the curriculum with the state technology
literacy standards and with the state frameworks. We recommend reviewing the technology
program PK through 12 to ensure vertical and horizontal alignment and integration into all
classrooms. Currently, skills taught in the technology courses are not always further developed
in the content courses. This impedes the students abilities to develop these skills to a higher
level. Without additional staffing (Instructional Technology Specialist) this is unlikely to occur.
Share Current Instructional Guides for Staff
The instructional guides, websites, and videos located on the Moodle server for students could
be a great resource to share with staff. This would enable them to build their proficiency level
and also build an awareness of what the students are learning in the technology literacy classes.

Page 21 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Provide Extended Learning Pathways

Provide relevant opportunities and certificate programs to effectively educate students for
school to work.
Increase Teacher Proficiency Level to Support Technology Integration
Benchmark 2-A-1: Outside Teaching Time At least 90% of teachers use technology every day,
including some of the following areas: research, lesson planning, organization, administrative
tasks, communications, and collaboration. Teachers explore evolving technologies and share
information about technology uses with their colleagues.
The survey results show that teachers concentrate their use in more basic technology areas.
The table inserted below shows how often teachers use technology in their classroom for
various purposes. For example, more teachers responded that they use technology for looking
for information on the internet and for electronic communication (emails & newsletters).
Teachers are not always using available technologies to their fullest power, to promote 21st
skills. This indicates a need for more professional development and the support and coaching
from an instructional technology specialist to increase proficiency and comfort in using these
technologies.

This information is filtered to display data only from teachers. Please note that for five of the
task areas that we asked about, the most prominent response is never.
Benchmark 2-A-2: For Teaching and Learning - At least 90% of teachers use technology
appropriately with students every day to improve student learning of the curriculum. Activities
include some of the following: research, multimedia, simulations, data analysis,

Page 22 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

communications, and collaboration. Teachers integrate evolving technologies that enhance

student interest, inquiry, analysis, collaboration, and creativity.
Benchmark 2-B-2: 100% of teachers are working to meet the proficiency level in technology, and
by the school year 2014-2015, 90% of teachers will have mastered 90% of the skills in the
Massachusetts Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT).
This information is filtered to display answers only from teachers. The higher responses were
under not applicable and never. This is consistent with the proficiency level of the teachers
as articulated in the summary. The use of technology that is the highest is the use the internet
to look for information. This does not reflect a level of technology integration that would
impact student learning.

Develop District Technology Professional Development Plan

Benchmark 3-A: At the end of five years, at least 90% of district staff will have participated in
high-quality, ongoing professional development that includes emerging technology issues,
technology skills, universal design, and research-based models of technology integration.
Benchmark 3-B: Technology professional development is sustained and ongoing and includes
coaching, modeling best practices, district-based mentoring, study groups, and online
professional development.

Page 23 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

The development of a multiyear professional development plan for teachers will provide
teachers and administrators a clear understanding of the districts expectations as it relates to
technology. This plan should be developed by a committee comprised of staff and
administrators. This committee should be in addition to the technology committee
recommended to develop a multiyear technology plan. The focus of this committee will be to
design a multiyear professional development plan that will build the proficiency levels of
teachers and will be in line with the district goals. A strong recommendation is to capture
district/school time which would include early release, professional development days, and
other district time to offer professional development. Providing professional development on
district time will enable systemic change for the school district. Otherwise, participants selfselect, which most often results in pockets of excellence and limited saturation throughout the
district. Of the number of people with SmartBoards the findings showed that the use of the
resources in the classroom is spread over a continuum of motivated adopters to reluctant
bystanders. One area of concentration would be to focus on SmartBoard training at various
levels offered during the district time with the concentration of developing technology
integration lessons.

Summary
The Massachusetts Teacher Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT) and the National Educational
Technology Standards (NETs) for teachers are guiding documents that clearly outline the
recommended proficiency level for teachers. The district should strive to have all the teachers
reach the Proficiency level of the TSAT. At the proficiency level, the teacher has developed an
ability to infuse technology in various aspects of the learning process to include curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. Currently, within the school district, the survey results clearly
show that the majority of the teachers are at Early Technology level with some at the
Developing Technology level. Since there are many factors that impact the ability of
educators to attain the Proficiency level, the recommendations in this report will outline the
steps and resources necessary to guide the teachers in the district to become proficient users of
technology for teaching and learning at a level that will impact student learning. Along with the
TSAT, the Massachusetts Department of Secondary and Elementary Education provides
Technology Benchmarks. Technology plans that address the benchmarks as outlined in that
document should help to support a successful implementation for technology use in both the
administrative and educational aspects of the school district.
Recommendations we suggest should be high priority are:
Provide focused professional development to address the districts initiatives, including
the SmartBoard.
Provide technology leadership through a district-wide Coordinator or Technology
Director to ensure a deliberate and cohesive system, with coordination for both
integration and technical resources.
Develop a multiyear professional development plan for technology integration to
support the teachers in multiple modalities with a focus on the districts initiative of 21st
century classrooms with SmartBoards

Page 24 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Consider the purchase of Microsoft Office to support the high school program and
district coordination of document sharing.

Page 25 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Findings: Leadership
Leadership Guiding Questions
Has the district developed a vision that guides the implementation of technology? Is the vision
widely known and shared by all and is it regularly evaluated, refocused, and revised? Are all
stakeholders committed to the vision? Does the vision drive planning, and are both focused on
educational outputs and instructional goals? Do administrators recognize exemplary use of
technology in instruction and do they provide constructive feedback to teachers on their
technology use? Is there a coordinated funding strategy to meet the goals of the technology
plan?

Commendations:
Absent any explicit technology leadership, the current Superintendent and Assistant
Superintendent have, along with their other extensive duties, been coordinating the efforts of
this department.
The district has developed and posted a Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan which
includes cyberbullying.
The district has a website that has extensive information available for both parents and the
community.
The district has publicly posted the AUP and Internet Policy on the district website. Each year
the district requires a signature from a parent for both policies.

Recommendations
Develop Clear Vision and Implementation Strategies
Benchmark 1-A: The district's technology plan contains a clearly stated and reasonable set of
goals and implementation strategies that align with the district-wide school improvement plan.
The district is committed to achieving its vision by the end of the school year 2014-2015.
Benchmark 1-B: The district has a technology team with representatives from a variety of
stakeholder groups, including school committee members, administrators, and teachers. The
technology team has the full support of the school superintendent to implement the plan.
The current Technology Plan was developed by the Technology Department with limited input
from any of the school staff, including administrators. The Technology Plan must be developed
by key stakeholders including administration, technology coordinator/director, teachers,
parents, and community members. This interrelated group will ensure the alignment of the
Technology Plan with the District Plan and will build support for ongoing budget and staffing
needs. The Technology Plan should be used to support the budget and personnel requests for
the school district relative to technology. The plan should clearly outline goals and strategies
which will enable the school district to monitor the progress of the school district as it relates to
technology to support teaching and learning.

Page 26 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Hire a District-level Technology Director/Coordinator

Benchmark 2-C-1: The district has a district-level technology director/coordinator.
Currently, the focus for the technology department is almost entirely on the technical aspects
of the organization with limited focus on the education components necessary to infuse
technology into the curriculum. Although it is necessary to have the technological components
in place, a successful technology program requires a balance, with the primary focus on
teaching and learning. This crucial position should be held by someone with a strong
educational background and an understanding of the technological components to support
both the educational and administrative functions of the organization. A successful person in
this position would have skills in project management and would be able to make decisions
regarding technology software and infrastructure that demonstrate knowledge and
understanding of the technical information while at the same time keeping the needs of
students and staff in mind.
Provide Clear Guidelines Regarding Electronic Communication
During the interviews, we heard that there is some uncertainty relative to electronic
communication to parents. Are administrators and teachers to use the district website, send
emails, or distribute electronic newsletters? Guidelines regarding the expectations for both
administrators and staff would be a recommendation.

Summary
Throughout the interviews, people were unable to state that there was a shared vision and few
had any knowledge of the current Technology Plan. The Technology Plan was developed and
completed solely by the Technology Department. The lack of input from key stakeholders has
impeded the growth of the infusion of technology for teaching and learning throughout the
organization. A shared vision and a clearly articulated plan would build a cohesive
understanding and guidelines for administrators when purchasing resources, developing school
goals, and communicating to parents and the community about the needs for their school
buildings.
Some of the recommendations for leadership are:
Develop a long-range, comprehensive Technology Plan.
Create a vision for technology that is shared by all staff and administrators.
Hire someone in a leadership role to guide the district technology department.
Establish clear guidelines for electronic communication.

Page 27 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Appendix A Survey Questions

The survey was administered online. Here are the questions that comprised the staff survey.

Page 28 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Page 29 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Page 30 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Page 31 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Page 32 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Page 33 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Page 34 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Page 35 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Page 36 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Page 37 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Page 38 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Appendix B Data Systems

DATA SYSTEMS (If Yes specify)
SPED
Library
Parent Notification System
Health
Cafeteria
Student Information System
Financial

SPECIFICS
eSped
Koha
Connect Ed
iPass
NutriKids
iPass
MUNIS

Staff Information Management System (tracking for

DESE Reporting, certification, etc
Professional Development
Email
Professional Dev Tracking
Website
Security Portal (LMS)
Online Course
What systems if any are integrated with each other??
Integrated is defined as using a SIF integrator/script to
update information on a regular basis.

iPass
iPass, Moodle
FirstClass
iPass
Drupal
Moodle
Moodle
Novell LDAP server
connected to Moodle,
Drupal. Ipass server updates
to NutriKids and ConnectED

ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION
Attendance
Progress/Report Cards
Electronic Gradebook
MCAS Analysis

iPass
iPass
iPass
State Data Warehouse

Page 39 of 39

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

NETWORK INFORMATION
Help Desk/Ticket System (Name of System) (Y/N)
Virtualization Servers? Product used (Y/N)
Virtualization to desktop (Y/N)
Connectivity between Buildings
Connectivity within Buildings
Inventory Management (Software, Hardware)
Wireless Infrastructure
Security on Wireless
Protocol for network services, etc..(i.e. Active
Directory)
Policies in place
Remote access (specific use of this resource)
Antivirus software
Spyware software
Content Filtering

Website development software district

Website development for teachers

Archiving services/product
Anti-spam software/hardware
Imaging software
Backup system and protocols
Disaster recovery plans/protocols/systems
Number of servers and specific tasks
OTHER
Heating Systems, Maintenance Systems
Security (i.e. security badges)
Phone systems
Facility Scheduling System
Copiers/Scanners

Page 40 of 39

Liberum
VMware 4.0
no
Fiber
Wireless, Ethernet
zCM (Novell)
AeroHive
AeroHive Manager
LDAP
AUP, ISP
VPN Specified Users,
Email. Ipass
Avira
Avira
Marshall 8e6
Drupal, GIMP, Windows
Movie Maker, OpenOffice,
Google Picasa, Audacity
Drupal, GIMP, Windows
Movie Maker, OpenOffice,
Google Picasa, Audacity
FC Archive Services, Backup
Exec
Barracuda
zCM
Backup Exec 2010
In Process of being Updated
13 file/print,web, and email
server
Niagara Framework
ID Badges, Code Entry into
buildings
ip Phone
Beacon
Leased, Scanners HP

Technology Audit

CTO to Go

Other Software Resources

Discovery Education Streaming
ThinkCentral (StoryTown online)
Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI)
Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC)
Pearson SuccessNet
Inspiration
SMART Notebook
OpenOffice
Microsoft Office
Scratch
ML Test Generator
ExamView
Microsoft Publisher
Type To Learn JR
WJ3 Writer Reporter
Zap Around Town
Type To Learn 3
Virtual Business
Trudys Time in Place
TimeLiner
Studio MX (Macromedia)
SMART Response
Sammy's Science House
Rigby
PrintShop
Millies Math House
Mavis Beacon
Math Arena
KidPix 3
InkScape
IceCream Truck
EasyBook
Cross Country Safari
Co-Writer
Board Maker
ArcView
CamStudio
Orchard Math
West Point Bridge Design

Page 41 of 39

Educational Videos
StoryTown online
reading assessment program
independent reading
math online
concept mapping
interactive presentation
Office Suite
Office Suite
programming language
test/assessment software
test/assessment software
publishing software
typing program
Assessment
mapping and direction skills
Typing program
Instructional Software
Instructional Software
Instructional Software
Creative Suite
Student Response Software
Instructional Software
Instructional Software
publishing software
Instructional Software
Instructional Software
Instructional Software
bitmap drawing program
Vector Graphics Editor
Instructional Software
book-publishing too
Instructional Software
word-prediction
PCS Software
GIS
Screen Recording Software
Instructional Software
Bridge Design Software

Technology Audit

CTO to Go