THE IMPACT OF THE E-RATE PROGRAM IN ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT:
DID A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM INFLUENCE THE
ADOPTION OF AN INNOVATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL?
by
DENNIS F. DEMPSEY
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department ofEducational Leadership
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor ofEducation
December 2008
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
Dennis Dempsey
Title:
"THE IMPACT OF THE E-RATE PROGRAM IN ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT: DID A
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM INFLUENCE THE ADOPTION OF AN
INNOVATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL? "
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Doctor of Education degree in the Department of Educational
Leadership by:
Diane Dunlap, Chairperson, Educational Leadership
Philip McCullum, Member, Educational Leadership
Keith Hollenbeck, Member, Educational Leadership
Ozzie Rose, Member, Not from U of 0
Robert 0 Brien, Outside Member, Sociology
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the
Graduate School for the University of Oregon.
December 13,2008
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of
Oregon Libraries.
© 2008 DENNIS F. DEMPSEY
III
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
Dennis F. Dempsey for the degree of
in the Department of Educational Leadership to be taken
IV
Doctor of Education
December 2008
Title: THE IMPACT OF THE E-RATE PROGRAM IN ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT:
DID A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM INFLUENCE THE
ADOPTION OF AN INNOVATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL?
Approved: _
Diane M. Dunlap
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted to address unequal access to
technology by K-12 schools and public libraries in the United States. The federal
government has since spent over $21 billion in the E-Rate program. The purpose of the
study was to document E-Rate expenditures and technology usage patterns and to
investigate the effectiveness of the federal diffusion project in influencing technology
behaviors in one rural school district in Oregon. Data collected on E-Rate
reimbursements and the use of these funds were collected for the school district over a
10-year period.
vThe amount of bandwidth utilization and the capability of individual school
networks increased at each school each year over the 10-year period. The school district
also found ways to meet the substantial paperwork requirements imposed by the federal
agencies in charge of the program. At the end of 10 years, the school district addressed
their long-term connectivity needs by installing and paying for their own district managed
fiber network.
The E-Rate program appeared to be successful in supporting diffusion of the
technology innovations and was probably necessary for the school district to be able to
utilize the Internet and the World Wide Web. Other factors mayor may not have been as
important as the E-Rate funds in diffusion of the innovations. Recommendations are
made for future research.
---_._-_._-_._-----
VI
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Dennis F. Dempsey
PLACE OF BIRTH: Chicago, Illinois, USA
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon
University of Alabama
College of Idaho
Augustana College
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership, 2008, University of Oregon
Master of Arts in School Administration, 1977, College ofIdaho
Bachelor of Arts in Geology & Earth Science Teaching, 1975, Augustana College
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Informational Literacy
Administrative Use of Technology
Systems Approach to School Improvement
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Superintendent, High Desert Educational Service District, Bend, Oregon, 2000-
Present
Director of Technology, High Desert Educational Service District, Bend, Oregon,
1998-2000
Principal, Sisters High School, Sisters, Oregon, 1992-1999
Principal, Homer High School, Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, Homer,
Alaska, 1985-1992
Vll
Principal, Wood River Junior High School, Blaine County School District,
Hailey, Idaho, 1981-1985
Vice-Principal 1980-81, Bandon High School, Bandon School District, Bandon,
Oregon, 1980-1981
Vice-Principal/Athletic Director/Science Teacher, Camas Valley High School,
Camas Valley, Oregon, 1977-1980
Teacher, South Junior High School, Nampa School District, Nampa, Idaho, 1975-
1977
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
President, Oregon Association of Educational Service Districts, 2006-2008
Chair of the State of Oregon Education Enterprise Steering Committee, 2006-
2008
Board Member, Cascade Healthcare Corporation, 2000-present
Member, State of Oregon Fair Dismissal Board, 1995-2002
Executive Board Member, Oregon Association of Secondary School
Administrators, 1998-1999
President, Oregon Association of Secondary School Administrators, 1997-1998
Oregon Secondary School Principal of Year, 1995-96
Executive Board Member, Oregon Association of Secondary School
Administrators, 1994-1999
Executive Board Member, Confederation of Oregon School Administrators, 1996-
1999
Coach of State Runner-up 3A Boys' Track & Field Team, 1996
Principal of the Year, Alaska Secondary School, 1990
Principal, U.S. Department of Education "School of Excellence," Homer High
School, 1988-1989
V111
Coach of the Year, Alaska Track & Field Girls' Team, 1989
President, Alaska Association of Secondary School Principals, 1991-1992
Executive Board Member, Alaska Council of School Administrators, 1990-1992
Coach of Alaska State Championship Teams in Girls X-Country Running, 1989
and 1990
President, Kenai Peninsula Administrators Association, 1988-1989
Executive Board Member, Alaska Association for Computers in Education, 1987-
1989
Member, Alaska State Department of Education Committee on Criterion for
Excellence: Science (1986) and Educational Technology (1988)
Homer High School filmed as a K-12 Success story by Apple Computer Inc.,
1988
Homer High School featured as a "School of the Future" by School Tech News,
1986
President, Computer Educators of Idaho, 1982-1984
Chairperson, State of Idaho Committee on Technology, 1985
Honorable mention as Educator of the Year by Electronic Learning magazine,
1985
Coach ofIdaho State Championship Teams in Girls X-Country Running, 1983
and 1984
PUBLICATIONS:
Dempsey, D. F. (1988, December). Ethics and the principal: 5 vignettes. NASSP
Bulletin, 72(512),21-22.
Dempsey, D. F. (1990, March). A principal attitude. NASSP Electronic Learning,
74(524),37.
Dempsey, D. F. (1993, June). Principally speaking: Managing change with
technology. NASSP Electronic Learning, 12(8),31.
Dempsey, D. F. (1997, December). Professional development for principals and
staff with technology. National Association ofSecondary School Principals
(NASSP) Practitioner, 24(2).
Dempsey, D. F. (1999, May). The benefits of creating your own school internet
service provider. NASSP Bulletin, 83(607), 16-20.
Dempsey, D. F. (1999, September). The principal push for technology. NASSP
High School Magazine, 7(1),30-33.
IX
xACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In any endeavor such as this research, there are folks who need to be recognized
for the help and support they gave me over the last 8 years to complete this project. First,
I want to thank Dr. Dunlap for helping guide me the last few years through the actual
writing of this paper. Her ongoing encouragement ofan older student was essential in
getting this work completed. Her willingness to go the extra mile and to do it with a sense
of humor was greatly appreciated.
I would have never completed this work without almost 7 years of consistent
encouragement and verbal nudging by my friend and fOffi1er colleague, Dr. Phil
McCullum. Phil knew how much of a challenge it was going to be for a full-time school
superintendent to complete all the class work, tests, research, and writing to complete this
educational journey. His occasional emails, invites for informal meetings and helping me
focus on a topic were key in getting this work completed. Amazingly, he did all of this
while working full-time and planting his own vineyard.
As with any dissertation, there are key folks who help you finalize your work. I
want to thank Jackie Comad, my editor, for all the time, energy, and positive thoughts
she sent my way over the last couple of years. The board of directors of the High Desert
Education Service District must also be thanked for their ongoing encouragement and
financial support to complete this project. Their annual questioning of how I was doing in
my work helped to keep me on track to meet my goals.
Xl
Finally, I have to thank my family and friends for their constant support. They
knew this was a lifetime goal for me but one that I thought was out of reach after 34 years
in the education business. Support from my wife, daughters, mom, brothers and sisters
across the country were vital in keeping me from abandoning this effort on many
occasions. To each of them I am deeply indebted.
Xll
DEDICATION
It was not hard to determine whom I should address in this dedication section of
this dissertation. It has been my wife Nancy who has encouraged and supported all these
years in all of my professional efforts, even when they took me around the world or over
to the library in Eugene. Even while she was battling cancer, she continued to encourage
me to finish this multi-year project. Without her love and devotion to our family, and me
much would never have been accomplished personally or professionally over the last 34
years. I am indebted to her for her never-ending love.
Xlll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of the Study 1
Background for the Study 1
II. OVERVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY HISTORY 8
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 9
E-Rate 10
Process to Receive Funds 11
School District Qualification Process 12
Technology Plan 12
The FCC Form 470 13
The FCC Form 471 15
The Funding Commitment Decision Letter..................................................... 17
The FCC Form 486 17
The Invoice (FCC Form 472 or FCC Form 474)............................................. 18
Retention ofRecords and Audits 18
Service Providers Process................................................................................ 20
Service Provider Identification Number 21
Search School District Requests for Service........ 21
Responding to School District Requests for Products and Services........... 22
School District Selects Service Provider. 22
Assist School Districts with Application Review....................................... 23
Receive Funding Commitment Decision Letter.......................................... 24
Begin Providing Services 24
File Annual Certification.. 25
Invoice......................................................................................................... 25
The Internet and the World Wide Web............................................................ 27
Research on Internet Connectivity and Networks 38
XIV
Chapter Page
III. LITERATlTRE REVIEW 49
Overview ofthe Theoretical Framework 49
Rogers' Theory.. 50
Innovation 52
Communication Channels .. 53
Time 53
Innovation-Decision Process....................................................................... 54
Categories ofAdopters................................................................................ 56
Social System.............................................................................................. 58
Diffusion of Innovations in Schools. 59
E-Rate and Technology in Schools.................................................................. 63
The Federal Government and USAC as the Change Agent............................. 65
IV. METHODOLOGY 67
Research Questions 67
Assumptions 69
Choosing Qualitative Research 69
Research Design 70
Site Selection 73
Sources ofData................................................ 74
Data Collection 75
Analysis............................................................................................................ 75
ValidityIR.eliability 75
Implications................................................................................................. 76
Summary.......................................................................................................... 77
V. DATA REPORTING AND ANALYSIS 78
E-Rate Management 93
The Schools. 95
Network Design Over a 10-Year Period 98
Network 2000 100
J'Jetwork 2005 101
xv
Chapter Page
E-Rate Reimbursement.................................................................................... 103
VI. ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 107
Limitations of This Study and Recommendations for Further Research......... 117
APPENDICES 121
A. CROOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY PLAN
(2006-2008) 121
B. FCC FORM 470................................................................................................ 174
C. FCC FORM 471 175
D. FCC FORM 472 176
E. FCC FORM 474 177
F. FCC FORM 486 178
BIBLIOGRAPHY 179
XVI
LIST OF FIGURES
H~ ~~
1. Application process flowchart 20
2. Crook County School District network 1998-1999 99
3. Crook County School District network 2007-2008 102
4. Crook County School District network 2008-2009 103
XVll
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. E-Rate Deadlines 19
2. Data Transmission Rates 47
3. Discount Matrix 85
4. Free and Reduced Lunch 86
5. E-Rate Reimbursements 104
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to detennine ifuse of the federal E-Rate program
by a school district brought about the adoption and use of the innovations of the Internet
and the World Wide Web in each of the schools in one rural school district in the state of
Oregon. I needed to document E-Rate expenditures and broadband connectivity usage
patterns to investigate the effectiveness of the federal diffusion project in influencing
technology behaviors in this school district. Adoption or lack of adoption of the
innovation, and the use of federal funding to sponsor adoption of an innovation, has
possible implications for future efforts to diffuse new technologies in rural educational
settings.
Background for the Study
During the early 1980s, public schools in the United States were the subject of
nearly 30 national reports. These reports, issued by commissions, task forces and
individuals, announced to the American people that our nation was "at risk" if we didn't
improve our schools and better prepare our students for the changing and increased
demands of global competition in the next century (Cetron, 1985). A Nation at Risk
(National Commission on Educational Excellence, 1983) and the SCANS Report (U.S.
2Department of Labor, 1991), in particular, argued that technology would playa major
role in the future and was one way to resolve many of education's problems and prepare
the nation's workforce to be competitive in an increasingly global economy (Schofield,
2002). The use of technology in our schools was seen as a key ingredient for improving
our schools and our competitiveness as a nation.
Educators across the country responded to these many reports over the next 20
years. During the 1980s and 1990s, school districts in the United States spent billions of
dollars on the purchase of personal computers and on the installation of local and wide
area computer networks (Peslak, 2004). For example, in 1983, there was one computer
for every 125 students in U.S. public schools. By 1998, there was one computer for every
six students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).
However, as schools across the country purchased millions of computers, few
schools were using these computers to access the Internet in classrooms, and many
schools did not have the funds or technological expertise to buy computers or participate
in technological expansion in the classroom at all. In 1994, only 35% of the public
schools in the country had access to the Internet. Another key measure of Internet access
is the proportion of instructional rooms connected to the Internet. In 1994, only 3% of
instructional rooms were connected to the Internet (Cattagni & Farris, 2001) and only
38% of the nation's schools were using networks for student instruction (Educational
Testing Service, 1996).
In 1993, Daniel Burrus proposed what a school of the future could look like:
3Every school in the country will be linked with fiber optics and use digital
imaging. Teachers and students will swap books, periodicals, course outlines, and
pictures. Students will tap into the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian and
use them as national education utilities. (1993, p. 246)
Two years later in his book, The Road Ahead, technology entrepreneur Bill Gates
discussed how he believed technology was changing the world. Gates argued that the
Internet and the resultant "information highway" was the most important single
development in the world of computing since the IBM PC was introduced in 1981. "As
more and more computers are connected to high-bandwidth networks, and as software
platforms provide a foundation for great applications, everyone will have access to the
most of the world's information" (Gates, Myhrvold, & Rinearson, 1995).
Gates argued that schools must alter their focus of education from the institution
to the individual. The ultimate goal would be to move from getting a diploma from a
school at one point in time to gaining technology-driven knowledge that would be
practiced as lifelong learning. This shift in knowledge would become a constant
throughout an individual's entire life. Technology would offer educational opportunity
that was not necessarily related to school classrooms and educational institutions. He also
said that it was going take a massive amount of money to give every school in the nation
equal access to information.
In 1995, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration issued
the first of four reports documenting the existence and particulars of what was called the
"digital divide" in America. Affordable access to computers and computer networks was
4not available to all students; that potentially weakened the nation in tenns of having a
competitive workforce, but also separated people with access to infonnation technology
and those without it into groups more and less employable (Servon, 2002). This kind of
data and growing political support for equal access to technology in public schools and
public libraries led to proposals made by the Clinton Administration in 1996 to address
school and library connectivity. The "digital divide" became the rallying cry in
Washington, DC, in 1995 and 1996 as efforts towards adopting a legislative solution to
this dilemma were debated by Congress.
School districts and local schools started to address the issue of the "digital
divide" on their own while Congress debated the issue. One example of this is illustrated
by the efforts taken by the Sisters School District in Sisters, Oregon, in 1995. The school
opened in 1992 and, during the construction, the district had the funds necessary to install
an internal local area network (LAN) using coaxial cable. The advantage of using coaxial
cable to an Ethernet network was the ability to transmit data at much higher rates. Two
years later it was found that the cost and accessibility for Internet bandwidth that was
needed for the growing school enrollment was not being met by the current Internet
Service Provider. Five educators in the district felt that the best solution to address the
problem was to find a way to create their own Internet Service Provider in the school.
This group created a business plan and one of the teachers was able to secure a loan from
a local patron for $50,000 to start the ISP. The ISP was started not only to provide more
cost-effective Internet bandwidth to the school, but also to provide the students with an
opportunity to run a high-tech business. The students were trained in how to operate a
5business in addition to learning how to set up computers and install computer modems in
local residences. The idea was to sell enough subscriptions for Internet service to local
patrons so that the cost of the Internet connection to the school and school district would
be minimal. The ISP was named OutlawNet and within 2 years had over 500 subscribers
to the service (Dempsey, 1999).
While the Sisters School District had the vision and financial resources to address
their Internet bandwidth needs, the same could be not said about other schools and school
districts in Central Oregon or the state of Oregon. To start addressing this type of "digital
divide," Norma Paulus, then Oregon State Superintendent of Education, called upon the
Oregon Association of Educational Service Districts (ESDs) to connect all schools in the
state to the Internet. In 1995, the Oregon Public Education Network (OPEN) was created
to enable all of Oregon's K-12 schools to participate in a coordinated information
network that would allow students and educators to reach technology-based classes and
resources. OPEN's goal was to access and use local successful regional networks that
were already in place so that each school could have access to a wide range of networks
and educational services targeted for Oregon students and educators (OPEN, 2006).
Efforts like Sisters School District and OPEN started to COlmect schools to the
Internet and nationally 50% of the schools were connected by 1996. Yet only 14% of the
classrooms were connected to the Internet. This problem of classroom connectivity to the
Internet was due to the fact that only 38% of the schools had LANs for student
instruction. Students attending poor and high-minority schools had less access to LANs
than students attending other schools (Coley, Cradler, & Engle, 1997).
Eventually, the E-Rate program was enacted as part of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 as a new component of the universal service program that had been created
in the past to ensure affordable telephone service in rural communities. By including
subsidy for Internet services in the revised telecommunications plan, Congress was
recognizing the growing importance of the Internet to improve educational access to
critical information, especially in rural areas where other forms of access to data were
potentially more limited than the forms of access available in more metropolitan areas.
The act provided up to $2.25 billion annually in discounts on telecommunications,
Internet access, and internal networking processes to public and private schools and
libraries in the United States (Arfstrom & Sechler, 2007).
Noting the historic nature of the bill, President Clinton stated that the legislation
would "stimulate investment, promote competition, and provide open access for all
citizens to the Information Superhighway" (Messere, 1996).
The Federal Communications Commission established the rules for the E-Rate
program in 1997 and provided oversight and review through the Schools and Libraries
Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). USAC started
providing E-Rate discounts in 1998. This federal program has now been in place for 10
years and has impacted nearly 100% of public and private schools in the United States.
The United States Government had used many different vehicles to attempt to
diffuse innovations like the Internet into society in the past (Rogers, 2003). Some have
been more successful than others. Was this particular effort successful? How were these
dollars used to implement this technology in each school? What is the status of the
6
technology being used now compared to its past use? Has the use of the dollars provided
by this federal program been successful in diffusing a new technology in an educational
setting? These questions brought me to this study.
In the following pages, I have organized this dissertation report of my research
study in to six chapters. Chapter I is an introduction to the topic and the purpose
statement for the research project. Chapter II is an overview of the development of the
technology and the federal E-Rate procurement process, which is so embedded in this
study. Chapter III provides a theoretical framework for the study and I review prior
empirical research studies on related topics. Chapter IV is an outline of the methodology
planned for this research study. Chapter V is a report of findings. Chapter VI is my
conclusions and recommendations for changes in future practice, for future research, and
for contributions to innovation theory.
7
8CHAPTER II
OVERVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY HISTORY
Most dissertations move from the introduction of the topic in Chapter I to an
overview of related theory and research in Chapter II. In this dissertation study, however,
there is enough related background definitions and history of development of technology
needed for the study to warrant a separate chapter. In addition, an understanding of the
complete process that a school district must follow to qualify for E-Rate funding is
included in this chapter. Thus, before tuming to the theoretical framework for this study,
I review definitions and history in this chapter as background for the remaining chapters.
If the prospect of flattening - and all of the pressures, dislocations, and
opportunities accompanying it - makes you uneasy about the future, you are
neither wrong nor alone. When civilization has gone through a major
technological revolution, the world has changed in profound and unsettling ways.
(Friedman, 2005, p. 8)
In his book The World is Flat, Friedman shared with the world his belief that the
world as we knew it was flattening due to at least 10 different forces. Friedman believes
that the second force that helped flatten the world is the new age of connectivity. This
new age of connectivity happened due to a convergence of events that took place in the
space of a few years in the early 1990s. These events were the emergence of the Intemet
as a low-cost global connectivity tool, the creation of the World Wide Web that allowed
9individuals to post their own digital content for anyone to access, and the spread of
commercial Web browsers which allowed users to retrieve documents or Web pages
stored on a Web site and display it on their own computer screen (Friedman, 2005).
Friedman's book illustrates how fast things have changed in the world in a
relatively short amount of time. Some of these changes were spurred by efforts by our
own government as to whether it was helping fund the original creation of the Internet or
funding schools and libraries so they could connect to the Internet and the World Wide
Web via the E-Rate program.
In 1994, the first high profile survey by the United States Federal Government to
address the "have and have not" issue for access to electronic information was initiated
by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration within the
Department of Education. The poorest households were found to have the least amount of
penetration for telephones, computers and modems (Compaine, 2001). The information
from this study-helped lead to the introduction and eventual passage of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
The purpose of the Universal Service Section (Section 254) of the
Telecommunication Act of 1996 is to help schools and libraries obtain access to state-of-
the-art services and technologies at discounted rates. Under this section, all
telecommunication carriers serving a geographic area shall, upon a bona fide request for
any of its services, provide them to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries
10
for educational purposes at rates less that the amount charged for similar services to other
parties (Aufderheide, 1999).
By providing financial resources to local school districts, the Congress was
providing incentive to schools and districts to join the "Information Age." With the
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, school districts were given hope that
they would have access to a certain amount of federal dollars to help build their computer
network infrastructure and give them an economical way to access the Internet and the
World Wide Web. Local school districts were expected to use these federal dollars, and
their own local resources, to connect all of their schools to the Internet and the World
Wide Web. During the first nine years of the program, the Universal Service
Administrative Company distributed over $21 billion to telecommunication and Internet
service providers (ISPs) for schools and libraries (USAC, 2006).
E-Rate
The USAC was created by the Federal Communications Commission to
implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (USAC, 2006). This support provided
by USAC is commonly referred to as E-Rate support. The E-Rate program is a federal
universal funding mechanism, which addresses the technology gap by defraying
connection costs at public education institutions (Servon, 2002). The purpose of this
support is to provide affordable telecommunications and Internet access services to
connect schools and libraries to the Internet. This financial support goes to service
11
providers that offer discounts on certain services to eligible schools, school districts,
libraries, and any consortia of these entities.
The financial support provided by the E-Rate program uses a sliding scale of
reimbursement based on the local school district's free and reduced lunch rate. The E-
Rate program created a framework for allowing schools to receive discounts for
telecommunication and Internet access but it did not dictate how school districts would
go about creating computer networks or access to the Internet. The program did not
mandate any minimum of connectivity to the Internet for each school. This lack of
general direction from USAC allowed for variance in the level ofInternet and World
Wide Web connectivity to and within schools in this country.
The federal government chose the E-Rate program as the vehicle to diffuse the
new technology of the Internet and the World Wide Web to school districts and libraries
in the United States. The program procedures that a school district must follow to receive
a discount or reimbursement are quite extensive and as such have actually led to cottage
industries of providers who complete the paperwork for contracted school districts. The
following is a description of the different steps a school district must take to qualify for
funding via the E-Rate program.
Process to Receive Funds
Each school district and library must go through a systematic process to request
and then eventually receive discounts for telecommunications services they wish to use to
bring the Internet and the World Wide Web to their schools and libraries. There are many
12
time-consuming steps in this process. The steps include determining school district
qualifications, preparing a technology plan, opening the competitive process (Form 470),
seeking discounts on eligible services (Form 471), confirming the receipt of services
(Form 486), and invoicing for services (Forms 472 and 474) (USAC, 2006). See
Appendices B through F for examples of these forms.
School District Qualification Process
In general, a school is eligible for Schools and Libraries support if it meets the
following eligibility requirements:
• Schools must provide elementary or secondary education as determined by
state law;
• Schools may be public or private institutional or residential schools, or public
charter schools;
• Schools must operate as non-profit businesses;
• Schools cannot have an endowment exceeding $50 million.
Technology Plan
The first step for most schools and school districts to apply for E-Rate discounts is
to prepare a technology plan. This plan sets out how the Internet and the equipment to
connect computers will be used to achieve specific curriculum reforms or library service
improvements. The technology plan is to guide planning and investment, both for E-Rate
13
funds and for the other district resources needed to take advantage of technology. USAC
requires that the technology plan must contain the following five components:
• Clear goals and a realistic strategy for using telecommunications and
information technology;
• A professional development strategy to ensure that staff knows how to use
these new technologies;
• An assessment of the telecommunication services, hardware, software, and
other services needed;
• A sufficient budget to acquire and support the non-discounted elements of the
plan - the hardware, software, professional development, and other services
that will be needed to implement the strategy;
• An evaluation process that enables the school or library to monitor progress
toward the specified goals.
Before discounted services begin, a Schools and Library Division (SLD) certified
technology plan approver must authorize school district technology plans. School
districts access certified approvers online via the USAC website or the Oregon State
Department of Education.
The FCC Form 470
The next step in the E-Rate process is to stm1 a competitive process for the
different services desired. After the technology plan has been developed and the school
district has identified the products and services needed to implement the plan, the school
14
district submits to the SLD a Form 470, Description ofServices Requested and
Cert[fzcation. This form can be submitted either online or via a paper process. The SLD
posts completed forms on the website to notify telecommunication service providers that
the school district is seeking the products and services identified in Form 470.
School district applicants must wait at least 28 days after the Form 470 is posted
to the website and, if applicable, at least 28 days after a Request for Proposal (RFP) is
publicly available, and consider all bids received before selecting the service provider to
supply the services desired. In addition, school district applicants must comply with all
applicable state and local procurement rules, regulations, and competitive bidding
requirements.
There are several specific rules that the school districts must follow in regards to
the Form 470.
• The school district cannot seek discounts for services in a category of service
on the Fonn 471 if those services in those categories were not indicated on the
Form 470.
• The Form 470 is completed by the entity that will negotiate with potential
service providers.
• The FOffi1 470 cannot be completed by a service provider who will participate
in the competitive process as a bidder.
• The school district is responsible for ensuring an open, fair competitive
process and selecting the most cost-efTective provider of the desired services.
15
• The school district must determine whether to receive discounts on bills or
reimbursements for services paid in full.
The school district must save all competing bids for services to be able to
demonstrate that the bid chosen is the most cost-effective, with price being the primary
consideration. These bids must be saved for at least 5 years after the last date of service
delivered in case of an audit or any other inquiry (USAC, 2008).
After the SLD has successfully posted a Form 470 to or on the website, the
applicant is sent a Form 470 Receipt Notification Letter that provides important
information, including the "Allowable Vendor Selection/Contract Date," which is the
earliest date the school district can select a service provider, execute a contract, and
submit a completed Form 471.
The FCC Form 471
Having selected a service provider, the school district is ready to complete the
Form 471, Services Ordered and Cert(fication, which is the actual request for funding.
Because the amount of funding available each year is capped at $2.25 billion on a
national level and demand in most years has significantly exceeded funds available, FCC
rules prescribe a filing window. All Form 471 documents filed during this time are
treated as if simultaneously received. Once the filing window opens, the school district
can submit the Form 471 either online or on paper.
The Form 471 is used to calculate the discount percentage to which the school
district is entitled. The E-Rate discount is based on the percent of the local school district
16
population eligible for the National School Lunch Program. The Form 471 lists the
individual funding requests, which must be separated by service category and service
provider. There are several specific rules that the school districts must follow in regards
to Form 471.
• All window-filing requirements must be met in order for an application to be
considered with all others received in that timeframe.
• School districts are required to pay the non-discount portion of the services for
which they receive discounts. The funding necessary to pay this portion must
be budgeted and approved before submission of the Form 471.
• Funding requests must be limited to the cost of eligible services to be
delivered to school districts for eligible purposes. If 30% or more of a request
is ineligible, the entire request will be denied.
• There are a number of important certifications on the Form 471. School
districts must be sure they can truthfully and correctly make these
certifications. The SLD checks the accuracy of the certifications made by
applicants and denies funding if one or more of the certifications is found to
be untrue. False statements on the Form 471 (and other FCC forms) can result
in civil and/or criminal liability.
• The Form 471 cannot be processed without the required attachment(s), which
must contain detailed information about the products and services ordered so
that the SLD can verify eligibility.
17
Once these rules and steps have been met, a Form 471 Receipt Acknowledgment
Letter is sent to the school district that provides important information to the applicant
and the service provider, including a summary of the data from the Form 471 (USAC,
2006).
The Funding Commitment Decision Letter
As soon as the Form 471 has been reviewed, the SLD issues one or more Funding
Commitment Decision Letters (FCDLs) to both the school district and the service
provider, such as Qwest, setting out its decisions for each funding request. If a school
district believes any of its funding requests have been incorrectly reduced or denied, the
district can appeal the SLD decision(s), either to the SLD or to the FCC.
The FCC Form 486
In order to help the SLD ensure that it pays service providers only for services
that have actually been delivered, the school district submits the Form 486, Receipt of
Service Confirmation, listing each separate funded request for which the delivery of
services has begun. The Form 486 also tells the SLD that the applicant's technology plan
has been approved, and informs the SLD of the school district's status of compliance
with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) (USAC, 2006).
18
The Invoice (FCC Fonn 472 or FCC Fonn 474)
The SLD must receive an invoice in order to pay the discounted amount on
services for which funds have been committed from each telecommunications provider
that is approved during the E-Rate process. If school districts receive discounts on their
bills from service providers, the service providers must submit the Form 474, Service
Provider Invoice, to receive payment for the discounts they have provided. If school
districts wish to request reimbursement for services for which they have already paid in
full, they must submit the Form 472, Billed Entity Applicant Reimbursement. The SLD
bases the billing mode for each funding request - discounting or reimbursement - on the
first type of invoice it processes for payment (USAC, 2006).
Retention of Records and Audits
All E-Rate applicants must maintain their records for at least 5 years after the last
date of service delivered to be able to comply with audits and other inquiries or
investigations. The USAC and the FCC visit a sample of applicants to ensure that
services have been delivered in compliance with FCC rules.
The SLD provides a table-based list of deadlines for the E-Rate program. The
following table (Table 1) lists these events and deadlines.
Table 1
E-Rate Deadlines
Form or Event Deadline or Dates
Funding Year July 1 through the following June 30 (non-recurring services
through the following September 30).
Form 470 Posted at least 28 days before the filing of the Form 471,
keeping in mind (1) the timeframe for compliance with all
competitive bidding requirements and (2) the Form 471
application filing window opening and closing dates.
Form 471 window Early November to early February preceding the start of the
Funding Year (exact dates for each funding year will be posted
on the website).
Form 471 Received or postmarked no later than 11:59 PM EST on the day
of the close of the Form 471 application filing window (exact
date is be posted on the website).
Form 486 Received or postmarked no later than 120 days after the date of
the Funding Commitment Decision Letter or 120 days after the
Service Start Date, whichever is later.
Form 472/474 Received or postmarked no later than 120 days after the date of
the Fonl1 486 Notification Letter or 120 days after the last date
to receive service, whichever is later.
Appeals Received or postmarked no later than 120 days after the date of
the Form 486 Notification Letter or 120 days after the last date
to receive service, whichever is later.
The E-Rate application process includes 11 steps, from the technology plan
through actual invoicing for the services being used to provide Internet to the school
district. Figure 1 displays in a USAC process flowchart the 11 steps in the process.
19
Applicant or Service Provide,
Service Provider Iden1ificalioll Number
Fann 470 Receipf NoliliclltiCHI Ldr.::r
Form 471 Receipt Aekno....tede.menl Letter
Funding Commitment Deciaion Lc:Iter
Fonn486 NotifiC.1tion Letter
Billed Enlit~·Applicont Reimbul"5cment or Service Provider
Invoiee
Application Process Flow Chart
Wait at least 28 days!
Technology Plan
approved by
celtilJed approvcr
Key
AP or SP
SPIN
RNL
RAL
FCDL
486NLtr
DEAR or
SPJ
QtrlYDiSbrq\l!~E1?"F~=d:=;"lRpl
20
Check filedFonns
470, contact
applicants. and
N~pond withbids
Negotiate a contract
(or arrangement for
tariffed or month-to...
month seIViccs.)
Assist with
Program Integrity
MSW1lI1ce (PIA)
r~view
Tnvoice .review
(31'1)-
Correct errors and
re~ubmit if netlded
Rece·jve USAC'.
remittance
statement and
payment
October 2006
Figure 1. Application process flowchart
Service Providers Process
While each school district is required to complete an extensive process to receive
discounts for telecommunications, Internet access, and internal connections, USAC
works in conjunction with service providers to make sure these discounts are passed on to
program participants. The telecommunication companies participate in a 9-step process
that runs concurrently with the school district E-Rate process. Following are the nine
steps the provider must go through:
1. Obtain a Service Provider Identification Number
21
2. Search school district requests for service
3. Respond to school district requests for products and services
4. School district selects service provider
5. Assist school districts with application review
6. Receive funding commitment decision letter
7. Begin providing services
8. File annual certification
9. Invoice
Service Provider IdentUlcation Number
To participate in the Schools and Libraries Program, service providers must
obtain a Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) from USAC. The Service
Provider IdentU/cation Number and Contact Information Form (Form 498) is used to
collect contact, remittance, and payment information for service providers that receive
support from the Schools and Libraries program administered by USAC. USAC will
assign a Service Provider Identification Number to each company that registers by filing
a Form 498. The SPIN is used by USAC as a means of identification and tracking records
for the company (USAC, 2006).
Search School District Requests for Service
Since there is a prescribed timeline that must be followed each year by school
districts to receive E-Rate funds, service providers know when they can go to the USAC
website to search for those school districts in their service area that have requested a
specific service. After USAC posts school districts' 470 forms, the service providers can
22
search and download information on these forms so they can consider bidding on these
requests.
Responding to School District Requests for
Products and Services
School districts must conduct a fair and open competitive bidding process by
which they determine the services they order for discounts. To be sure that a fair and
open competition is achieved, service providers such as Qwest or local cable companies
must hold neutral marketing discussions with school districts so as not to taint the
competitive bidding process. The school district should not have a relationship with the
service provider prior to the competitive bidding process that would unfairly influence
the outcome of a competition, furnish the service provider with "inside" information, or
allow the service provider to compete unfairly in any way. The school district must be in
a position to accept bids once its Form 470 is posted on the website for 28 days. The
school district must take an affirmative role in the evaluation of such bids. The school
district may not delegate this evaluation role to anyone associated with a service provider.
When responding to Forms 470 or RFPs, servlce providers must comply with all
appropriate state or local procurement rules and/or regulations and competitive bidding
requirements. Service providers must also comply with any specific requirements
detailed in an RFP (USAC, 2006).
School District Selects Service Provider
Once a school district has selected a service provider, the services for
telecommunications services must be provided either through a month-to-month
23
arrangement or by contract. USAC has determined that tariffed and month-to-month
services do not require a contract, although school districts and service providers may
enter into a contract for these services. USAC assumes that internal connections and basic
maintenance for internal connections will be provided under contract. Contracts must be
signed and dated by the school district prior to certifying the Form 471. Service providers
must give applicants the choice between receiving discounted bills and paying their
customer bills in full and requesting reimbursements from USAC through the service
provider. In both cases, USAC will pay the service provider. Service providers are
encouraged to make the appropriate arrangements with applicants before the applicant
files Form 471 (USAC, 2006).
Assist School Districts with Application Review
After a school district submits Form 471, USAC issues a Form 471 Receipt
Acknowledgment Letter (RAL) to both the applicant and the service provider(s). The
RAL provides details of the information the school district provided on its Forms 471.
It is sent out before USAC reviews the Form 471, so it does not reflect any USAC
decisions on eligibility or funding commitment levels.
USAC reviews the Form 471 for accuracy and compliance with program rules.
Although filing application forms is the school districts responsibility, service providers
can assist applicants by providing certain information for the form. Service providers can
also assist applicants with identifying ineligible products and services, which should not
be included in funding requests.
24
After the Form 471 is submitted, service providers can provide details as
requested on the products and services contained in the funding request as it is being
reviewed by USAC. School districts can seek assistance from service providers in
completing their Form 471. (USAC, 2006)
Receive Funding Commitment Decision Letter
USAC issues support decisions in the form of Funding Commitment Decision
Letters. These letters contain important information about the school districts' requests
for support and USAC's decisions. The FCDL provides background information about
the next steps to be taken, a notice on funds availability, and an explanation of the terms
found in the enclosed Funding Synopsis for the service providers.
School districts receive one or more FCDLs for each Description of Services
Ordered and Certification Form (Form 471) with details of the decision on each funding
request by the Funding Request Number (FRN) assigned to each funding request.
(USAC, 2006)
Begin Providing Services
Service providers cannot provide services before the start of the funding year,
which begins on July 1 and ends the following June 30. After the school district files the
Receipt of Service Confirmation Form (Form 486) to indicate that the provision of
services has begun, the service provider will receive a copy of the Form 486 Notification
Letter. This letter contains the Service Start Date, which is the earliest date that USAC
will provide discounts for services.
25
The Fonn 486 Notification Letter also contains detailed information about each
funding request. As with the Funding Commitment Decision Letter, service providers
may receive information from multiple applicants in the same Fonn 486 Notification
Letter. The service provider letter also contains more information about each individual
Funding Request Number than the applicant letter (USAC, 2006).
File Annual Certification
Service providers must file the Service Provider Annual Certification Form (Fonn
473) each year that they provide services under the program. The service provider
certifies that the invoices it submits to USAC will be based on bills already submitted to
school districts and will exclude any charges already invoiced to USAC. Additionally, the
service provider certifies that it acknowledges USAC's authority to request additional
documentation to support any invoices for a period of 5 years following the submission
of the invoices.
The celiifications on the Form 473 relate to the entire funding year. USAC does
not pay invoices - the Service Provider Invoice Fonn (Fonn 474) submitted by the
service provider or the Billed Entity Applicant Reimbursement Fonn (Fonn 472)
submitted by the applicant - unless USAC has a Fonn 473 on file for the funding year
featured on the invoice (USAC, 2006).
Invoice
The final service provider step in the E-Rate application process consists of the
service provider invoicing USAC using a Service Provider Invoice (SPI) form (Fonn
474) or by the school district using a Billed Entity Applicant Reimbursement (BEAR)
26
form (Form 472). FCC rules require USAC to pay universal service support to service
providers and not directly to applicants. Two invoice methods and program forms exist in
this final step:
• Service Provider Invoice (Form 474)
• Billed Entity Applicant Reimbursement Form (Form 472)
USAC encourages service providers to work with school districts to include a
provision in contracts or service agreements specifying whether customer bills will be the
total cost of services or only the customer's non-discount share. Service providers may
provide school districts with discounted bills and submit the SPI to request payment from
USAC for USF support to be paid. Service providers and school districts may jointly
submit the BEAR when the applicant has paid the entire cost of services to the service
provider. In all cases, USAC pays support to the service provider. USAC will base the
invoicing mode (SPI or BEAR) for a Funding Request Number on the first invoice that is
successfully processed for that FRN. Once established, that invoice mode must be used
for all other invoices on that FRN. USAC will not process invoices for a funding year
before a Service Provider Annual Certification Form (Form 473) is on file for that
funding year. The SPI may be filed either on paper or online (USAC, 2006).
While the steps to qualify for E-Rate funding for a school district are extensive,
once they are completed they are the key to providing the much-needed financial
resources for a school or school district to access the Internet and the World Wide Web.
These dollars are used to reduce costs for transport to the Intemet via an Internet Service
Provider and providing funds for a district to build their own internal infrastructure to
27
transmit the information from the Internet and the World Wide Web. So what is the
Internet and the World Wide Web that the E-Rate program was created to diffuse to
schools in 1998?
The Internet and the World Wide Web
The Internet is a worldwide system of computer networks, which is primarily
public, cooperative, self-sustaining, and accessible to hundreds of millions of people
worldwide. Physically, the Internet uses a portion of the total resources of the currently
existing public telecommunication networks. Information is transported from one
computer to another computer via this system of computers and computer networks
(Barker, 2006). Internet connectivity means that a computer that a person is using has the
ability via a set of telecommunication providers to communicate with other computers
and access information that is stored in an electronic format. Technically, what
distinguishes the Internet is its use of Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol
(TCP/IP) to communicate between computers via telecommunications systems such as
copper phone lines.
The ability to access different resources via the Internet and the World Wide Web
is tied to the speed of the connection to each computer. Connection speeds range from
24k per second for a dial-up connection to one gigabyte per second for a state of the art
fiber connection. The higher the connection speeds, the more varied resources students
and staff can access quickly.
28
An example of one resource students and teachers can access via the Internet and
the World Wide Web is streaming video. This medium is an educational resource that is
replacing traditional videotapes used in the classroom. Previously, a videotape machine
and a television would be needed to show students a video. Streaming video via the
Internet allows the student the convenience of access to video clips or segments when he
or she needs to use them directly on hislher computer. The classroom teacher can use the
streaming video as a classroom presentation resource with the use of a video projector.
The projector takes the video signal from the computer and broadcasts it to the entire
class of students on a projection screen.
Essentially, streaming video cannot be used effectively via a dial-up connection.
To prevent a disjointed flow of video to the desktop computer, the connection to the
Internet via an individual computer needs to be faster than 24k. A more effective
connection for the use of streaming video in the classroom would be a T1 line provided
by a telecommunication carrier. This T1 connection transmits data at a burst rate of 1.5
million bits per second (bps) and allows students to use streaming video effectively. This
statement holds true if the total number of computers in the school connected to the
Internet via the T1 line does not reduce the flow of the streaming video content to below
50k. In other words, there cannot be a large number of computers utilizing the T1 line at
the same time. If the number of computers accessing the computer network is high, the
flow of streaming video is restricted on the network and the video becomes too slow for
appropriate usage.
29
However, what if a school is limited to one T1 line connection for their 400
students and they have at least 50 computers in the school being used at any given time?
Is streaming video really an option for students in that particular school? If this
educational resource is to be used effectively in a classroom, the internal school network
and its connection to the Internet must be robust enough to handle multiple students
accessing streaming video and other Internet content at the same time.
Before discussing the implementation ofthe E-Rate program in a Central Oregon
school district, it is important to understand how the Internet came into existence, what it
actually is, and what the Internet and the Worldwide Web can be used for by students and
staff. The origin of the Internet was spawned out of ideas presented in memos by 1. C. R.
Licklider, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in 1962. He
conceived of the social interaction of people using a network. In 1964, Leonard
Kleinrock, also of MIT, published the first book on packet switching. He believed that
information could be transmitted by existing telecommunication lines by packetizing data
rather than by circuit switching (Leiner et aI., 2006).
The next step in the evolution of the Internet was the actual testing to see if one
computer could talk to another computer. This testing led the innovators to the conclusion
that they needed to find a way to use Kleinrock's theory on packet switching instead of
the current circuit-switching model used by the existing phone system (Leiner et aI.,
2006). The packet-switching theory is fundamental to the development of computer
networking and the Internet. It is the concept of breaking large computer files into small
chunks, or packets, for transmitting via a network of many computers rather than via
30
dedicated circuits. The packets that comprise a file do not necessarily travel along the
same path. Routers control the flow of information and determine the most efficient way
to get a packet to its destination. Packet switching makes the Intemet efficient and
resilient. Even the largest files are sent in small packets, so there are no big files clogging
the network. Moreover, because there are multiple altemate routes that packets can take
to reach a destination, the breakdown of one computer along the route will not stop a
transmission (Leiner et aI., 2006).
By 1967, MIT professor Lawrence Robelts had published a paper on his ideas of
the computer network concept and his plans for the Advanced Research Projects Agency
Network (ARPANET). The Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department
of Defense became the major influencing and funding source for the creation of
networking and, eventually, the Intemet (Hauben, 1996).
Kleinrock continued his work at the University of Califomia, Los Angeles
(UCLA), and because of his continuing work on packet switching, was chosen as the first
node for ARPANET. The second node on ARPANET was a computer at the Stanford
Research Institute. In October of 1969, the first host-to-host message was sent from
UCLA to Stanford. Eventually computers were added to ARPANET at the University of
Califomia, Santa Barbara, and the University of Utah. By the end of 1969, these four
computers became the genesis of the Intemet, as we know it today.
In 1972 the first demonstration of electronic mail, or email, occurred and was a
harbinger of future people-to-people communication via computers and computer
31
networks. While email was the largest use of ARPANET for the next 8 to 10 years, it did
lead to the eventual creation of the World Wide Web.
My first experience using ARPANET was in 1975 while working for the Army
Corps of Engineers in Rock Island, Illinois. While working for the Corps as a geologist, I
was collecting measurements on berms on the down-river side of the Saylorville Dam
north of Des Moines, Iowa. I would collect this data and then transmit the information via
a computer in Rock Island to a mainframe computer at UCLA, which in tum would
analyze this data and tell us via formula how much the berm was compacting as earth was
added to it.
During the 1960s and continuing into the early 1970s, most school districts used
mainframe computers for financial purposes and student information uses, such as
attendance and scheduling. Users were connected by "dumb" terminals and the
communication between the dumb terminal and the mainframe computer was not part of
a network such as ARPANET.
The use of ARPANET was expanding nationally and was being used more and
more for personal electronic communications. The creation of the personal computer, the
Internet, and the World Wide Web were the key elements of the technology explosion.
The idea of the personal computer had been on the drawing boards since the
1950s but did not become a reality until the mid 1970s with the invention of the
integrated circuit and the microprocessor. The miniaturization of electronic circuitry
enabled computer manufacturers to combine the essential elements of a mainframe
computer onto tiny silicon computers chips, which helped increase computation
32
performance and decrease cost. The first microprocessor was created by Intel in 1971. By
1975, the first personal computer kit was created by Micro Instrumentation Telementry
Systems in New Mexico and was called the Altair 8800. The operating software for the
Altair was created by Harvard students Bill Gates and Paul Allen, and their eventual
company, Microsoft, was started that same year in New Mexico. The Tandy Corporation
was the next company to create kits to build one's own personal computer. Two years
later, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created the first personal computer with a color
screen and a user-friendly keyboard (Yost, 2005).
It was during this time that personal computers began being purchased by school
districts. Often, microcomputers were bought by teachers. These educators may have
been responsible for the use of the mainframe computer that was used in the school
district, or they may have purchased the machine for their computer science class so their
students could learn to build and program one of the first personal computers. At that
time, the goal in the schools was not to use the personal computer for improving
instruction or "surfing the web," but to give students exposure to a new technology that
was affordable. Schools were exposed to the invention of personal computer software
such as VisiCalc (an electronic spreadsheet) and other software programs that allowed
one to use the computer like a typewriter. Educators started to offer advanced computer
classes to students exposing them to discrete mathematics and Boolean algebra. This type
of class would enable students to understand how a personal computer worked, in
particular the microprocessor and integrated circuit board. During this period, there were
33
no high school textbooks on the topic. Personal computers were starting to drive changes
in K-12 and higher education computer information science programs and electives.
My experience with microcomputers in the 1970s and 1980s is very similar to the
experience of many other educators across the country at the time. Personal computers
were affordable for schools. Districts bought these computers and educators allowed their
students to use them for word processing, spreadsheets and, eventually, skill building
software programs. An example of this type of software was one written to teach students
keyboarding skills.
During the infancy stage of personal computer use in the schools, communication
was the primary function of the computer, and met users' needs as such. However, as
technology needs grew, users wanted more than electronic mail. This push drove
innovators to search for other uses, not only of the personal computer but also of
computer networks. School districts looked for ways to have computers in their schools
share common peripherals, such as printers, and storage of information in a centrally
located device. They yearned to replace the storage of information on computer floppy
disks. This demand for a multi-access digital communication system led to the creation of
Ethernet. Ethernet was created at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)
Laboratory in 1972 and became the genesis of similar Ethernet local area networks for
personal computers (Hutchinson, Mariani, & Shepherd, 1985).
The invention of the Ethernet network and the demand in business and education
to share storage and peripheral devices not only led to the use of these networks in
schools, but also to the creation of interface cards that would allow the personal computer
34
to communicate via the Ethernet network to other computers and peripherals. In 1983
while I was Principal of Wood River Jr. High School, I installed a Corvus Ethernet
Network. Our school was the first to implement this type of technology in a school in the
state of Idaho. It connected a classroom set of Apple computers together via twisted pair
cable so that each computer could communicate with each other and store information on
a common storage device. This type of network allowed software companies to write
programs that could be uploaded and used by the individual personal computer users.
This innovation was monumental. Schools no longer needed multiple copies of a program
on a floppy disk that had to be loaded manually onto each computer.
While the expansion ofLANs and the fledgling Internet continued to grow, the
need for a way to access data that was stored in different computers in different
geographical areas drove innovators to look for a new way to organize and communicate
information. Tim Berners-Lee was working for the Centre European pour la Recherche
Nucleaire (CERN) in 1980 and was looking for a way to access data he had in separate
locations. He worked on a way to do this for some time at CERN but left without much
success. In the meantime, CERN became involved with the Internet and Transmission
Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) and by 1989 was the largest Internet site in
Europe. Berners-Lee came back to CERN in 1989 and got involved in a computer culture
that was dealing with distributed computing and object-orientated programming. Object-
orientated computing was a product of the NeXT Company that was founded by Apple
founder Steve Jobs (Feizabadi, 1996).
35
In March of 1989, Berners-Lee wrote a proposal for CERN on information
management that led to his idea of the World Wide Web as a worldwide information
infrastructure. The initial World Wide Web program was developed in November of
1990 using NeXT's object-oriented technology. The program was a browser which also
allowed WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editing of World Wide Web
documents. The first World Wide Web server was also developed and implemented on
NEXTSTEP. The software was ported to other platforms in 1991 and released to the
public. Berners-Lee and his team at CERN paved the way for the future development of
the web by introducing their server and browser; the protocol used for communication
between the clients and the server; Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), the language
used in composing web documents; Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML); and the
Universal Resource Locator (URL) (Feizabadi, 1996).
Once these concepts became available to others around the world in the public
domain it was not long until user friendly, point and click graphical user interfaces were
created for the web. Marc Andreesen and his peers at the University of Illinois created the
first graphical user interface (GUI) in 1994 and it was named Mosaic. Andreesen moved
to California in 1994 and, with several others, started a small software company that
began to market Mosaic. This company eventually became Netscape (Griffin, 2000).
The invention of the World Wide Web by Berners-Lee, followed by release of the
Mosaic browser which was relatively user friendly, are two of the main reasons for the
successful explosion of the use of the Internet and the World Wide Web over the last 10
to 12 years.
36
In 1994, no one could have predicted the explosion in use of the Internet via the
World Wide Web. It was as if a perfect technological eruption had occurred where
several key events were triggered at the right time that allowed for this explosion of
technological use. The price of personal computers continued to fall while their
calculating speed and memory size grew dramatically. Internet Service Providers began
to pop up around the world. They provided business and individual computer users with
connectivity to the Internet and the World Wide Web via local telecommunication
infrastructures. The advances in graphical user interfaces that made it easier for folks to
communicate with each other and access information from other computers around the
world caused people in all fields of study and business to look for ways to use this tool
for productivity and educational purposes.
Educators, such as me, used an Internet Service Provider such as America Online
in the late 1980s and early 1990s for information research for students. At this time, the
Internet and the World Wide Web were still difficult to use. The user needed to be able to
understand complex programs and search algorithms to find information. Something had
to change so the computer would be a more user-friendly resource. To that end,
researchers and computer programmers started to experiment with different ways to make
it easier for people to find information on the World Wide Web. The first Web search
engine invented was called Wandex. This defunct search engine created an index
collected by the World Wide Web Wanderer, a web crawler developed by Matthew Gray
at MIT in 1993. One of the first "full text" crawler-based search engines was
WebCrawler, which came out in 1994. Unlike its predecessors, it let users search for any
37
word in any webpage, which became the standard for all major search engines since. It
was also the first one to be widely known by the public. In 1994 Lycos (which started at
Carnegie Mellon University) was launched, and became a major commercial endeavor.
Soon after, many search engines appeared and vied for popularity. These included
Magellan, Excite, Infoseek, Inktomi, Northern Light, and AltaVista. Yahoo! was among
the most popular ways for people to find web pages of interest, but its search function
operated on its web directory, rather than full-text copies of web pages. Information
seekers could also browse the directory instead of doing a keyword-based search (Wall,
2007).
Search engines simplified the process of gathering information. Educators found
that the classroom computer could now be used for more than just personal productivity
software or for student or financial purposes.
School districts began to purchase subscriptions to access the Internet and the
World Wide Web via ISPs. They found that they could use their internal local area
Ethernet computer networks to allow students and staff to access all kinds of information.
Schools continued making huge investments in personal computers, internal computer
networks, and software that was specifically focused on educational purposes.
Communication via these LANs in a school, regional networks between schools, and
metropolitan area networks within a school district, all allowed for instantaneous sharing
of information, especially via email. This effort occurred inconsistently in Central
Oregon, the state of Oregon, and the United States in general. If a school or school
district had the vision, expertise and the money, they could provide their staff and
38
students with access to the ever-increasing resources being added to the World Wide
Web.
Reports on the status of technology in U.S. schools in 1995 and 1996 showed
definitively the inequality in access to technologies such as the Internet and the World
Wide Web. It was this type of information that the authors of the 1996
Telecommunications Act used to justify funding telecommunication connectivity and
internal computer network equipment purchases for all schools in the nation. It also
became a way for the United States to diffuse a new technological innovation to all of the
educational institutions in the nation
Research on Internet Connectivity and Networks
While studying the impact of the federal E-Rate program on schools in one school
district in Oregon, it became important to understand what Internet connectivity is and is
not. It is also important to understand the speed of connections to the Internet. In addition
to understanding how the desktop computer in a classroom connects to the Internet and
World Wide Web, there has to be an understanding of how different types of computer
networks operate in a school setting.
Computers have a common language that they use to communicate with each
other via the Internet. When a computer is connected to the Internet, the computer
accesses a copy of the TCP/IP language, as does every other connected computer
regardless of their particular operating system. When your computer utilizes this
language, it can communicate with other computers. TCP/IP is a two-layer program that
39
handles the delivery of infOlmation and the infoITIlation itself. The higher layer,
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), manages the assembling of a message or file into
smaller "packets" that are transmitted over the Intemet and received by a TCP layer on
the receiving computer that reassembles the packets into the original message. The lower
layer Intemet Protocol (lP) handles the address of each packet so that it gets to the right
destination (Cisco Systems, Inc., 1996).
The speed or the rate that information is being transmitted from computer to
computer is dependent on a number of different variables before the information ever
reaches a school network or an individual computer in a school. The Intemet relies on
many of the same facilities as the telephone network but uses the power and versatility of
digital technology to convert a telecommunication infrastructure originally designed for
voice calls. At the most fundamental physical level, the Intemet and the telephone
network consist of transmission pipe including copper wire and fiber optic cables. Also
included are switches that route calls from one such pipe to another. The pipes are further
subdivided into the loops that connect customers to switches, and high capacity trunk
lines that connect switches to other switches. The fundamental building blocks of most
telecommunication networks are loops, switches, and transport (Nuechterlein & Weiser,
2005).
The last mile of connection to a home or a school is referred to as the loop. These
are the wires a company uses to connect its customers to the nearest switch and the rest of
the world. The most traditional form of loop is the twisted pair of copper wires used to
establish a connection with a telephone company's switch. Telecommunication
40
companies use fiber optic cables to carry large amounts of communication from copper
wires between their central offices or switching stations. This is because fiber optic
cables can carry many more different signals at that the same time than a copper cable.
Switches are then used by the telecommunication companies to direct a voice or
data transmission from one loop or transport link to another en route to the call's
destination. There are two kinds of switches: circuit and packet. Packet switches are used
to transport information via TCP/IP. This type of circuit is able to transport information
much faster than a traditional circuit switch. This in tum means that many different types
of packets of digital information can be sent down the transport line to the loop line
connected to the local school.
Telecommunication companies have spent billions of dollars on fiber optic cable
deployment. In fact, in many cities and between many large communities there was an
over-deployment of fiber optic cables in hopes of meeting the predicted increase in
demand for digital communication forms. This over-deployment of fiber cable led to
bankruptcy of companies such as WorldCom and Global Crossing. While billions were
spent on connecting large communities to fiber optic cable, there was little investment
within most rural communities. Most of the last mile loop facilities to schools, business
and homes remained copper wire (Nuechterlein & Weiser, 2005).
This fact meant that large amounts of information could be transmitted across the
nation via fiber optic cable, but then was slowed down or bottlenecked when it was sent
to a local school, home or business. The analogy I have used for years to explain this
phenomenon is to imagine having a fire hose full of water that is connected to the central
41
office or switch of the phone or cable company, but the hose from the switch to the
school or home was a garden hose. The amount of information that was being sent over
the copper wires to the school was slowed dramatically.
The speed that different mediums transport phone calls or digital data is dramatic
and important when trying to understand its importance when connecting a school to the
Internet and the World Wide Web. This is true whether it is the connection to the school
or the connections within a school. Inside a school, most computer networks are a
collection of autonomous computers connected via a single technology. Just as there are
different mediums for transporting data to the schools, there are different mediums used
in connecting school computers and peripherals together within a school. This connection
can be by copper wire, fiber optic cable, coaxial cable, satellite signals and infrared
signals (Tanenbaum, 2002).
The peripherals that are tied to a school network can be anything from multiple
printers to several servers. In a typical LAN, one computer is the file server where the
software is stored that controls the network. There are many different forms of school
networks, just as there are many different ways or mediums for telecommunication
companies to transport data to and from a school. Most schools use either twisted pair,
coaxial, or fiber optic cabling for their internal school networks. The signals carried over
the network might be electrical if you are using copper wiring or they could be optical
signals as is used in fiber optic cable (Kosiur & Angel, 1995).
For many years, the cost of the cable was the driving force behind the decision on
which type of network to use in a school or school district. Using Ethernet to
42
communicate via copper wire was the choice for most schools due to its low cost of
installation and maintenance. In the early 1990s, most schools could only install copper
or coaxial cable networks; however, the cost of coaxial cable kept many schools from
purchasing these types of networks, even though the transmission rate over coaxial cable
is so much greater. When the computer network at Sisters High School was installed in
1992, they were able to install the more costly, higher speed, coaxial network because
there were sufficient funds available in the school building bonds reserve. At that time,
the first fiber optic cable networks were commercially available to schools. However, the
cost and the lack of technical support for this type of network kept Sisters High School
and many school districts from installing fiber optic networks.
An understanding of the different types of external and internal computer
networks is only relevant if there is a complete understanding of the different rates of
transmission of data over different types of networks and how that relates to the use of
the Internet and the World Wide Web by teachers and classroom students. As was noted
previously, there are several types of networks available for use in a school. The four
main types of computer networks are twisted copper, coaxial cable, fiber optic, and
wireless.
Each of these different types of networks transmits data at different rates of speed.
In the U.S., kbps stands for kilobits per second (thousands of bits per second) and is a
measure of bandwidth (the amount of data that can flow in a given time) on a data
transmission medium. Higher bandwidths are more conveniently expressed in megabits
43
per second (Mbps, or millions of bits per second) and in gigabits per second (Gbps, or
billions of bits per second) (BytePile.com, 2002).
A traditional copper phone line to a school or a home transmits data a rate of 56k
or 56,000 bps. Since many individuals and schools find this connection too slow to
effectively use the Internet, many install higher speed connections to their school or
home.
To increase the speed of a connection to a school, many will have Tl lines
installed between the telecommunications central office and their school. This is called
the last mile connection between a company such as Qwest and the school itself. T1 lines
have connection speeds up to 1.54 Mbps or 1,540,000 bps. If a school is fortunate enough
to be connected to a coaxial cable provided by a cable company, the connection rate to
the school could be up to 53 Mbps. Moreover, if a school is actually connected to fiber
optic cable that is provided by a telecommunications company or a cable provider, their
connectivity rate could be up to at least 1 GB (gigabyte), which is 1,OOO-million bps
transmission rate.
The last mile connection to a school can range from 24k to 1 GB depending on
the type of connection. However, just as it is important for the school to have a high
speed connection to the Internet and the World Wide Web, it is equally important to have
a high speed internal school network connecting the computers in the school. The speed
that data is transmitted on an internal school network is detern1ined once again by the
type of medium that is being used for the network and the design of the network.
44
The speed of the internal network is important when an individual computer, or a
group of individuals on computers, is trying to access information via the Internet and the
World Wide Web. Some of the first computer networks in schools used twisted copper
wires for transmission of data. An example of this type of network was AppleTalk.
AppleTalk was created by the Apple Corporation to allow different types of Apple
computers to talk to each other and peripherals at a speed of 230 kbps. In the late 1980s I
was Principal at Homer High School in Homer, Alaska. During this same time, our
school became a beta site for Apple Computer network cards for their Apple IIe
computers and their AppleTalk network. We were directly involved in the research
conducted by the company to see how this new network technology might work in
operating a school of 400 students.
Currently most schools use an Ethernet network that can transmit data from 10
Mbps up to 1 Gbps or 1 gigabit. The speed of the Ethernet network is driven by the type
of transmission material, whether coaxial or fiber optic and the speed of the switches
used to transmit the data. If a network is using a form of optical fiber for the network
medium and high-speed optical switches, there is the possibility that data can be
transmitted at very high speeds.
While the speed of the connection to and within the school is determined by the
medium over which the data is being transmitted, it is important to understand why it
might be important for a school to have a high-speed last mile cOlmection and a high-
speed internal network. The pressure is great to be able to access many different types of
information on the World Wide Web via the Internet. When one adds in the factor of
45
multiple computers on the schools network, the combination of the two is a driving factor
in the necessity of access to high-speed computer networks and Internet connections.
While the World Wide Web is the universe of network-accessible information, it comes
in many different forms and formats. These different types of forms and mediums are
transported at different rates over the Internet. For example, a teacher or student may
wish to view a video clip on a specific subject. This clip may run from a few seconds to
several hours, depending on the length of the clip and the ability of the computer network
to transmit the video. Most video clips can be transmitted at rates of20 to 400 kbps. The
LAN in the school and the one connecting the LAN to the Internet must have a consistent
rate of data transfer. The consistency allows the video to run smoothly on the user's
computer.
For example, if a student clicks on a video he or she wishes to view, it will take a
certain amount of consistent data transfer for the video to seem fluid and not stop and
start throughout the viewing of the video clip. Ifwe assume the transfer rate for a video
clip to view efficiently without any interruptions or hesitations is 200 kbps, then that one
computer on a school network must be robust enough to handle 200 kbps for the video
clip pIus any other data transfer that is going on at any given time. For example if a
school has a 56k connection to the school and the video clip needs to be transferred at a
rate of200 kbps, when the student clicks on the video clip to view it, it will seem
disjointed because the transmission rate that is needed is not adequate to allow it to be
viewed without hesitations. The same analogy can be used when a school has a Tl
connection. If the school has a connection that allows transfer rates of up to 1.5 Mbps and
46
an internal school network that allows transfer rates of at least 1.5 Mbps then
theoretically at least seven students could be accessing a video clip at a transmission rate
of 200k per second.
The reality in a school is that there are usually many different computers
connected to the internal school network and in tum connected to the last mile connection
to the school. Some activities, such as sending and receiving an email, may only take a
few kbps for just a few seconds. A phone call using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
may take anywhere from 8k to 64k for each call. In addition, if someone is trying to
video conference over the school network and the school Internet connection, then the
transfer rate needed may be anywhere from 400k to 1 Mbps.
Thus, the number of computers on a network accessing different mediums
requiring different data transfer rates determines the type of computer network and
Internet connection needed in a school. It does not take much imagination to see that as
more and more students and teachers access materials via the World Wide Web and the
Internet during a school day, the demand for more and more bandwidth for connectivity
purposes increases exponentially. For the classroom computer to be used as an
educational tool students must be able to use it for a wide range of purposes. Each one of
those purposes requires different data transfer rates. The ability to meet all of those needs
to transfer data is directly related to the speed of the school network and the Internet
connection. Table 2 on the following page exhibits the different mediums and their
transmission rates.
47
Table 2
Data Transmission Rates
Technology Speed
Regular
telephone Up to 56 Kbps
service (POTS)
Dedicated
56Kbps on 56 Kbps
frame relay
Physical medium
twisted pair
Various
Application
Home and small business access
Business e-mail with fairly large file
attachments
AppleTalk
satellite
230.4 Kbps
400 Kbps (Direc PC
and others)
Twisted pair
RF in space (wireless)
Local area network for Apple devices;
several networks can be bridged; non-
Apple devices can also be connected
Faster home and small enterprise access
frame relay
IBM Token
Ring/802.5
56 Kbps to 1.544
Mbps
1.544 Mbps
4 Mbps (also 16
Mbps)
Twisted-pair or coaxial Large company backbone for LANs to
cable ISP. ISP to Internet infrastructure
Twisted-pair, coaxial cable,Large company to ISP; ISP to Internet
or optical fiber infrastructure
Twisted-pair, coaxial cable,Second most commonly-used local area
or optical fiber network after Ethernet
Digital
Subscriber Line 512 Kbps to 8 Mbps
(OSL)
Twisted-pair (used as a
digital, broadband
medium)
Home, small business, and enterprise
access using existing copper lines
cable modem
512 Kb s to 52 Mb sCoaxial ca?le (usually uses
p p Ethernet)· m some systems .(see "Key and I h ' d fi 'Home, bUSIness, school access
. te ep one use or
explanatIon" below) t t
ups ream reques s
Ethernet 10 Mbps
IOBASE-T (twisted-pair);
IOBASE-2 or -5 (coaxial Most popular business local area network
cable); IOBASE-F (optical (LAN)
fiber)
DS3/T-3 44.736 Mbps
51.84 Mbps
Coaxial cable
Optical fiber
IS? to Internet infrastructure; Smaller
links within Internet infrastructure
ISP to Internet infrastructure; Smaller
links within Internet infrastructure
Optical fiber Internet backbone
o t' I fib ( d" " Workstations/networks with I 0/ I00
P lC~ O~ er t an) copper Mbps Ethernet plug into Gigabit Ethernet
up to me ers switches
100BASE-T (twisted pair); ..
IOOBASE T (t ' d .) Workstations WIth 10 Mbps Ethernet
-"-"-"-='-='-'=-----'- wlste paIr; .
IOOBASE-T (optical fiber) cards can plug mto a Fast Ethernet LAN
Fast Ethernet 100 Mbps
T-30 (DS30) 135 Mbps
OC-3/SDH 155.52 Mbps
OC-12/STM-4 622.08 Mbps
Gigabit I GbpsEthernet
OC-192/STM-
64 10 Gbps
OC-256 13.271 Gbps
(Bytepile, 2002)
Optical fiber
Optical fiber
Optical fiber
Optical fiber
ISP to Internet infrastructure; Smaller
links within Internet infrastructure
Large company backbone; Internet
backbone
Backbone
Backbone
48
We have now come full circle in our efforts to understand why the E-Rate
program was created by the federal government. They were looking for a way to
encourage and financially support schools and libraries to upgrade their internal networks
and connections to the Internet so that students, staff and patrons had access to materials
available on the World Wide Web. Many schools did not have the financial means to
purchase the needed equipment for the school network, nor could they afford the high-
speed connection costs to the Internet. The E-Rate program has allowed school districts a
vehicle to implement the high-speed networks and purchase the high-speed connections
to allow their constituents' access to the World Wide Web via the Internet.
49
CHAPTER III
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of the Theoretical Framework
Some authors have defined diffusion as the spontaneous spread of new ideas.
Amendola and Gafford compared the process of innovation with the diffusion of
innovation as the extent and speed at which the economy proceeds to adopt a superior
technique (Amendola & Gafford, 1988). Another pair of authors believes that innovation
is not an instantaneous event, but a time-based process involving several stages (Dodgson
& Bessant, 1996). Everett Rogers believes that diffusion is the process in which an
innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among members of a
social system. He also describes an innovation as an idea, practice or object that is
perceived as new by an individual, group or an organization. The word diffusion includes
both the planned and the spontaneous spread of new ideas (Rogers, 2003).
The effort to diffuse an innovation, such as the Internet and the World Wide Web
into the K-12 school environment, is not unique to our federal government. Several U.S.
government agencies have a division devoted to diffusing technological innovations to
the public or to local governments (Rogers, 2003).
Worldwide, many governments have attempted to implement innovations that
they have believed would have a positive effect on the members of their society (Rogers,
2003). These efforts have ranged from the improvement of water quality in Egypt to no-
50
smoking ordinances in states and cities in the United States. Federal agencies in the U.S.
have often provided funds to a university-based researcher to study how best to diffuse a
new technology that the government feels the public should adopt (Rogers, 2003).
The diffusion of innovation is nothing new to schools in the United States. In
many schools, a number of change efforts are usually going on simultaneously and most
schools average at least one innovation per year (Rutherford & Murphy, 1985).
Sometimes a diffusion of an innovation can take a very long time. For example, it took
almost 50 years for an innovation like kindergarten to be adopted in 95% of school
systems in the United States (Hord, 1987).
I chose Rogers' framework for studying the diffusion of innovation because it
seemed the cleanest and most used method to study a federal effort to diffuse a new
technology. Rogers' book lists many examples of different diffusion efforts of
innovations. He includes at least three specific examples that can be used as a comparison
to my study of the impact of the E-Rate program in diffusing the Internet and the World
Wide Web to schools. I will review the Rogers model as it relates to my study of one
rural school district in Central Oregon in diffusion of the technological innovation of the
Internet via the federal government's E-Rate program.
Rogers'Theory
The diffusion of innovation perspective was pioneered by French Sociologist
Gabriel Tarde in the early 1900s. According to Tarde, inventions diffuse from their
geometrical center as waves or concentric circles (Macauley, 2002).
51
It was not until the mid-twentieth century that the study of the diffusion of
innovation started to become a serious field of study in the United States. One of its main
catalysts was the 1962 book, Diffusion ofInnovations, by William Rogers. His book was
an effort to describe a general diffusion model and to push for greater awareness of
patterns of change about various research traditions.
Research and thought on the diffusion of innovation has been going on since the
early 1900s with Tarde leading the way and then followed by H. Earl Pemberton.
Pemberton suggested that gradual cultural diffusion of an invention resembled a
mathematical bell-shaped curve (Grubler, 1997). In the 1950s, Bryce Ryan and Neal
Gross took the work of Pemberton and looked at the different channels through which
innovations are communicated. Everett Rogers began his research at Ohio State
University where he studied the diffusion of agricultural innovations among Ohio
farmers. Rogers was influenced by the work of Ryan and Gross and studies that looked at
the diffusion of driver's education, kindergarten, and an antibiotic drug called
tetracycline. Rogers found similarities in these new studies with his study of farmers in
Ohio. These similarities were that different sources or channels were used by adopters at
different stages in the innovation-decision process.
Rogers' model of diffusion has three major core elements: the stages of adoption,
the identification of major players' roles, and the reaction observed between the two.
Rogers defined diffusion as the process by which innovation is communicated through
certain channels over time among members of a social system. Rogers defines innovation
as "an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or another unit of
52
adoption" (Rogers, 2003, pg.12). Rogers also introduced the concept of the innovation
decision process which an individual or organization, such as a school district, goes
through in the diffusion of an innovation.
Rogers defines diffusion as the "process by which (l) an innovation (2) is
communicated through certain channels (3) over time (4) among the members of a social
system" (Rogers, 2003, p. 11). In Rogers' fifth edition of his book, he also looks at the
rate at which individuals adopt an innovation. The following section reviews these four
elements in greater depth.
Innovation
The attributes of an innovation, such as the Internet or the World Wide Web, are
perceived differently by different people. This phenomenon helps explain why there are
different rates of adoption of a particular innovation. These characteristics include
relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. Innovations
that are perceived by individuals as having these characteristics will be adopted more
rapidly than other innovations or inventions (Rogers, 2003).
Rogers' reports that 20 years after his initial dissertation other researchers started
to define the concept of reinvention, which is the degree to which an innovation is
changed by a user in the process of adoption and implementation. Many people who
adopt an innovation want to be able to customize the innovation to meet their unique
needs and spur the reinvention of an innovation (Rogers, 2003).
53
Communication Channels
Rogers defines communication "as the process by which participants create and
share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding" (Rogers,
2003, p. 18). While interpersonal communication channels and mass media are important
in the diffusion of certain innovations, most people decide for themselves about an
innovation based on the evaluation of someone like himself or herself. How well an
innovation is communicated is impacted by whether the individuals who are
communicating have much in common and are considered homophilous, as opposed to
heterophilous, which refers to two or more individuals who interact that have different
attributes. Communication that is more effective occurs when individuals are
homophilous or are more like each other. The actual adoption of an innovation such as
the Internet should be impacted more by interpersonal communication than by mass
media, particularly in a school district.
Time
"Diffusion is a process that occurs over time, so there is no way to avoid
including time when one studies diffusion" (Rogers, 2003, p. 126). The dimension of
time involved in the adoption of an innovation such as the Internet is:
(1) The innovation-decision process by which an individual passes from first
knowledge of an innovation through its adoption or rejection, (2) the
innovativeness of an individual or other unit of adoption compared with other
members of the system, and (3) an innovation's rate of adoption in a system,
54
usually measured as the numbers of members in the system who adopt the
innovation in a given period of time." (Rogers, 2003, p. 20)
Individuals vary in the time they may take in deciding whether to adopt or reject
an innovation. A person may take years to adopt an innovation while the next person
might quickly move from learning or knowledge of the innovation to full
implementation.
Innovation-Decision Process
Rogers (2003) focused on a 5-step process in the innovation-decision process to
include, (a) knowledge, (b) persuasion, (c) decision, (d) implementation, and (e)
confirmation. As with many ilillovations in education, different school districts are in
different places in the 5-step innovation-decision process. By the time of the actual
implementation of the E-Rate program in 1998, all of the school districts in Central
Oregon had knowledge of the E-Rate program and the Internet. Most had already gone
through the persuasion step and the decision to connect their schools to the Internet due
to the efforts of their local ESDs and OPEN.
The first stage of the innovation-decision process is knowledge. Knowledge is
gained when an individual or a group of decision-makers learns ofan innovation's
existence and gains some understanding of how it functions. Rogers identifies three types
of questions that affect the diffusion of an innovation. These questions are, "What is the
innovation?", "How does it work?", and "Why does it work?" (p. 173). The first question
is tied to the awareness or knowledge of the innovation, or that the innovation exists. The
question of how it works is asked so that a person can use an innovation properly. The
55
question of why it works may be asked but, depending on the complexity of the
innovation, may not be as important as the first two knowledge questions.
The second stage of the innovation-decision process is persuasion. This stage
occurs when an individual forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude towards the
innovation. "At the persuasion stage the individual becomes more psychologically
involved with the innovation" (Rogers, 2003, p. 175). An individual will review an
innovation and determine whether applying or using this innovation in their current or
future situation will be beneficial to them as a person. "The main outcome of the
persuasion stage in the innovation-decision process is a favorable or unfavorable attitude
toward the innovation" (p. 176).
The next stage is the decision. The decision occurs when an individual engages in
activities that lead to the adoption or rejection of an innovation (Rogers, 2003, p. 20). An
important part of this stage is for the person making the decision to tryout the innovation
at least on a partial basis. If an individual were to try to use the Internet in a school and
found it to be somewhat advantageous, he or she might move towards an adoption
decision. If the individual found that using the Internet was not what he or she expected
or wanted, the innovation could be actively rejected or passively rejected by the
individual never trying to use the innovation at all.
The fourth stage is implementation, when an individual actually uses an
innovation. The actual implementation stage can go on for a prolonged period depending
on the innovation that is being adopted. During this time, reinvention is likely to occur as
different individuals try to fit the innovation into their own unique set of circumstances.
56
The process of reinvention provides a general picture that innovation is not a fixed entity.
The people that use an innovation "shape it by giving it meaning as they learn by using
the new idea" (Rogers, p. 188).
Confirmation is the last stage of the innovation-decision process. This occurs
when an individual seeks reinforcement of the decision made to adopt the innovation. A
person may change their mind about adopting an innovation if they are exposed to
conflicting messages about the innovation or do not believe the innovation will work to
meet their individual needs. An individual may also make a decision to reject an
innovation after they have already adopted it. At the same time, it is possible for someone
to adopt an im10vation that they previously rejected. Rogers believes that these five
aforementioned steps occur in this time-ordered sequence. The length of time required to
pass through this process is called the innovation-decision period. My study of the
adoption of the Internet in the Crook County School District will allow me to review the
decisions that were made concerning adoption during a 1O-year innovation-decision
period.
Categories ofAdopters
Rogers (2003) defines innovativeness as the degree to which an individual is
relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than the other members of a system (p. 22). He
uses categories for identifying different types of adopters of an innovation. These five
categories include: (a) innovators, (b) early adopters, (c) early majority, (d) late adopters,
and (e) laggards.
57
Innovators are venturesome and their interest in new ideas leads them to
communication outside of their normal social circles. They are people who are daring and
risky and do not mind the occasional setback from trying something new. The innovator
plays the role of gatekeeper in the flow of new ideas into a system such as a school
(Rogers, p. 283).
Early adopters are more a part of the mainstream local social system than the
innovator. They have the highest degree of opinion leadership. The early adopters help
trigger the critical mass when they adopt an innovation because they are respected by
their peers. "The early adopter knows that to continue to earn the esteem of colleagues
and to maintain a central position in the communication networks of the system, he or she
must make judicious innovation-decisions" (Rogers, 2003, p. 283). Early adopters are the
folks who make a decision to adopt an innovation and in effect mark it with their
individual stamp of approval.
The third group of people in a social system to adopt an innovation is called the
early majority. These folks have frequent interactions within their peer group but do not
hold the same opinion-leadership position as the early adopters group. This middle group
is a key link between the early adopters and the late majority. The innovation-decision
period for this group is longer than the first two groups but they have a deliberate
willingness to try to adopt an innovation. The early majority "follows with deliberate
willingness in adopting innovations, but seldom leads" (Rogers, p. 284).
The fourth group is known as the late majority and skeptics in a system. Skeptics
adopt a new concept or innovation after most people has already done so. Pressure from
58
peers is needed to move this skeptical group to adopt a new idea but many times this may
also be done due to economic necessity.
The final group in Rogers' model is known as the laggards. These are the folks
who are last to adopt an innovation. Laggards tend to be suspicious of innovations and
change agents and limit their interactions with those who share their traditional values.
They do not adopt an innovation until they know it will not fail.
Diffusion research has shown many differences between earlier and later adopters
of innovations. These differences include socioeconomic status, personality variables and
communication behaviors. These differences can be used to devise strategies in which
communication channels can be used to address different adopter categories.
Social System
The fourth and final element of diffusion of an innovation is the social system. "A
social system is defined as a set of interrelated units that are engaged injoint problem
solving to accomplish a common goal" (Rogers, 2003, p. 23). "A system has structure
that is defined as the patterned arrangements of the units in a system, which gives
stability and regularity to individual behavior in a system" (p. 37).
Individuals who are able to influence others' attitudes or behavior in adopting an
innovation are considered opinion leaders. "A change agent is an individual who attempts
to influence client's innovation-decisions in a direction that is deemed desirable by a
change agency" (Rogers, p. 38). Rogers distinguishes between four types of innovation-
decisions. The four types are: (a) optional innovation decisions, where a person chooses
to adopt or reject an innovation that is made by the individual independent of others in
59
the system; (b) collective innovation decisions, made by consensus of a group to adopt or
reject an innovation; (c) authority innovation decisions, where the choice to adopt or
reject an innovation is made by a few people in the system who have status, power, and
technical expertise; and (d) contingent innovation decisions, where the group bases their
decision only after a prior innovation decision was made.
Rogers (2003) believes that "a social system is involved in innovations
consequences because certain of these changes occur at the system level in addition to
those that affect the individual" (p. 30). Consequences are the changes that occur to an
individual or to a social system because of the adoption or rejection of an innovation like
the Internet. Finally, Rogers believes there are three different consequence classifications,
which are: (a) desirable versus undesirable, (b) direct versus indirect, and (c) anticipated
versus unanticipated.
Diffusion of Innovations in Schools
During the time from the 1950s to the 1970s, there was massive infusion of
money and effort to improve schools and the curriculum taught to the students. Much of
the research being completed delved into the question of why these new programs that
spent so much time and money were not being as successful as expected. During this
time, the many different studies on the effectiveness of particular innovations in schools
seemed to lack an understanding of what happens when an innovation is introduced in a
school. There seemed to be a complete lack of understanding of the process of change
60
that is needed for successful implementation of an innovation in an educational
environment (Hord, 1987).
The work of people such as Hord (1987) and Hall (2001) focused on the process
of change in schools instead of the innovation itself. By having an understanding of the
change process and its own definitive steps in a school setting, one could frame a process
to make sure that the adoption of an innovation would move from adoption to
institutionalization. Work completed at the University of Texas in the early 1970s in the
study of change in schools led to the creation of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
(CBAM). CBAM is an empirically based conceptual framework, which outlines the
developmental process that individuals experience as they implement an innovation. This
work recognized that change in a school environment is a process occurring over time,
which is essential for successful implementation of an innovation. CBAM is a set of tools
for planning, facilitating, monitoring, and evaluating change in schools (Hord, 1987).
The first set of diffusion studies completed in schools was due to the efforts of
Paul Mort of the Teachers College at Columbia University. For almost 50 years, starting
in the 1920s, he and his students completed over 100 studies of the adoption of finance
reforms by local schools. Mort was able to document that the cost per pupil was most
closely related to relative speed and success of adoption of an innovation. He also noted
there was a 25-year time lag from the adoption of innovations by early adopter schools to
laggard schools (Rogers, 2003).
Researchers such as Berman and Laughlin used Mort's studies to examine top-
down change efforts by the federal government, which were aimed at the changing
61
practices of school administrators and teachers in the United States (Berman, 1975). They
found that adoption of an innovation was more dynamic than previous research indicated.
The work of the Teachers College led to the establishment of the federal National
Diffusion Network that was the clearinghouse for research on school practices for 20
years. Funding for the National Diffusion Network ended in 1996.
There are several studies mentioned in Rogers' fifth edition of the Diffusion of
Innovation that can be used for comparison with this new effort to diffuse the Internet
and the World Wide Web in schools and libraries. These studies include the diffusion of
modem math in Pittsburgh, the worldwide diffusion of kindergarten and the adoption of
new communication technologies. Each of these studies focuses on a different facet or
part of the diffusion process and as such can be used to compare what I find in the Crook
County School District as they use the federal E-Rate program to diffuse the innovations
of the Internet and the World Wide Web.
Richard Carlson's study on the diffusion of modem math among school
administrators focused on the role of opinion leaders in the diffusion of modem math
among school administrators. His work found that the initial adopter superintendent was
too innovative to serve as the role model for the other regional superintendents. Most of
the superintendents waited to adopt the modem math curriculum until the opinion leaders
of a six-member group favored the innovation (Rogers, 2003).
Another study included in Rogers' latest edition is the worldwide diffusion of
kindergarten. Rogers speaks to the fact that it took kindergartens about 50 years to be
adopted by schools in the United States based on the work of Paul Mort. The new
62
programs of driver's training and modern math took only 18 and 6 years respectively to
be widely adopted. He tied this difference to the change agencies, which were the
insurance companies and car manufacturers for driver's training, and the National
Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education for modern math. What
interests Rogers about the worldwide diffusion of kindergarten was not particularly how
long it took to be adopted but how it was re-invented around the world and connected to
national values (Rogers, 2003).
The other study mentioned in Rogers' fifth edition that has some relevance to the
diffusion of the Internet and the World Wide Web in schools and libraries in the United
State is the adoption of new communication technologies. Rogers mentions three studies
dealing with new technologies. One study dealt with a Finnish company that found that a
great deal of time and effort was required by employees to learn how to use the personal
computer. This learning required up to 20 to 25% of the employees' time at work.
Another study by Igbaria and others found that allowing employees to play games on a
computer reduced their anxiety of using the computer in the work place. Finally, Volvo
did a study on the use of email in the corporation starting in the 1980s.Asin many other
diffusion studies, they found that a considerable period of time was required for the
diffusion process. The innovation process did not occur quickly even when the
administration was highly supportive of the effort (Rogers, 2003).
I focused my literature search on the studies of diffusion of technology in schools
and school districts and on the Federal E-Rate program. While there is not an extensive
63
amount of research, particularly in the arena of the adoption of the Internet and the World
Wide Web, I did find some studies that helped frame this dissertation research.
E-Rate and Technology in Schools
The E-Rate program has been operating for 10 years in the United States. Several
initial studies were completed on this program in early 2000 and 2001. The first major
study on the effectiveness of the E-Rate program was published in 2007.
One of the first reports on the E-Rate program was published in September of
2000 as part of an evaluation contract with SRI International by the U.S. Department of
Education. In the first two years, the E-Rate program distributed over $4 billion, with
85% going to K-12 public schools. There were approximately 13,000 public school
districts, 70,000 public schools, 5,000 private schools, and 4,500 libraries participating in
the second year of the program (Puma, 2000).
In 1999, the Benton Foundation funded a study of the impact of the E-Rate
program in four Midwest city school districts. Schools districts in Chicago, Illinois;
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Cleveland, Ohio; and Detroit, Michigan, were picked for this
initial study. The study found that while each district followed a different path when it
came to planning for, applying for, and using E-Rate funds, there were several common
themes that were evident in their study. These seven themes were: (a) network
infrastructure deployment accelerated and Internet access improved dramatically; (b) E-
Rate funding enabled school districts to leverage existing financial resources; (c)
professional development needs are increased geometrically; (d) school districts are
64
highly dependent on E-Rate funding; (e) the E-Rate program has led to changes in school
district planning processes; (f) the E-Rate process taxes relationships with vendors; and
(g) building basics delay the deployment of information technology (Carvin, 2000).
Of these seven themes, the one that had the most hidden costs was the building
basics problems. The E-Rate program does not support electrical upgrades and most
computer hardware. Many schools had to find internal resources to address electrical
needs in their schools to add internal computer network equipment such as routers,
switches and hubs.
In July 2003 the Education and Library Networks Coalition issued a report titled:
E-Rate - A Vision o/Opportunity and Innovation. Their findings found that the E-Rate
program was continuing to have a major impact on bringing the Internet and the World
Wide Web to schools around the nation. Between the initiation ofE-Rate in 1998 and
200 1, Internet access in public school instructional classrooms in rural areas rose from
57% to 89%. Internet access rates in minority classrooms skyrocketed between 1998 and
2001, rising from 37% to 81 % (Harris & Associates, 2003).
In 2006, Austan Goolsbee and Jonathon Guryan reported in the Review 0/
Economics and Statistics the results of their empirical study on the impact of the E-Rate
program in the state of California. Using new data on school technology usage in every
school in California from 1996 to 2000 as well as application data from the E-Rate
program, the researchers found that the subsidy did succeed in significantly increasing
Internet investment. Overall, by the final year of the sample, there were approximately
65
68% more Internet-connected classrooms per teacher than there would have been without
the subsidy (Goolsbee & Guryan, 2006).
The Federal Government and USAC as the Change Agent
As Rogers has said in the multiple editions of his book, our federal government
has created many different programs over the years to diffuse innovations in our nation.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 created a vehicle to diffuse the technologies of the
Internet and the World Wide Web to schools and libraries. The Schools and Libraries
Program of the Universal Service Fund, commonly known as E-Rate, is administered by
the USAC under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and
provides discounts to assist most schools and libraries in the United States to obtain
affordable telecommunications and Internet access. It is one of four support programs
funded through a universal service fee charged to companies that provide interstate
and/or international telecommunications services.
The Schools and Libraries Program supports connectivity - the conduit, or
pipeline, for communications using telecommunications services and/or the Internet.
Funding is requested under four categories of service: telecommunications services,
Internet access, internal connections, and basic maintenance of internal connections.
Discounts for support depend on the level of poverty and the urban/rural status of the
population served and range from 20% to 90% of the costs of eligible services. Eligible
schools, school districts and libraries may apply individually or as part of a consortium.
Applicants must provide additional resources including end-user equipment (e.g.,
66
computers, telephones, etc.), software, professional development, and the other elements
that are necessary to utilize the connectivity funded by the Schools and Libraries Program
(USAC, 2006).
During the first three chapters of this dissertation, I have discussed how the E-
Rate program came into existence and what the purpose of the program was for K-12
public and private schools and public libraries in this country. As the federal government
attempted to infuse the innovation of the Internet to these bodies throughout the country,
the decision was made by the federal government to use the Schools and Libraries
Program of the Universal Service Administrations Company (USAC) as the change agent
for this national effort. Rogers' work on the diffusion of innovations is the framework I
have chosen to study the success of the E-Rate program in one rural school district in
Central Oregon.
67
CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
The case study methodology that was used in this research is driven by the topic
of study. The questions being asked and the study of the diffusion of an innovation in an
educational setting led to the selections of a qualitative research method. Data was
collected though document analysis, archival records research, direct observation and
participant-observation. The data collected was from multiple sources of evidence and
was used to create a case study database, which provided a chain of evidence that
provided connections between the questions that were being asked and the conclusions
that were drawn at the end of the study.
Research Questions
Research questions used in this study were based on the theoretical framework of
the diffusion of innovations in an educational environment. These questions were framed
around the use of the E-Rate program and the subsequent use of the Internet in multiple
schools in one rural Oregon school district.
1. What was the status of Internet connectivity and networking in each school in
the district before the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996?
2. How much money has the school district received from the USAC since the
start of the E-Rate program?
68
3. How has the school district used these dollars to provide Intemet access to
schools and classrooms?
4. What is the status of Intemet connectivity to and within each school in the
Crook County School District?
5. What is the status of networks in each school in the district?
6. What is the current use of the Intemet in each school?
7. Did the use ofE-Rate funding at each school have a direct impact on the level
of use of the Intemet in each school?
8. Did the diffusion of the Intemet via the E-Rate program in the Crook County
School District parallel or diverge from predicted results based on past
research of the diffusion of innovations in a K-12 educational environment?
Field research included analysis of data related to funding received by the school
district via the E-Rate program since its inception in January 1998 and up to December
2007. Research included documenting the type of expenditures made with E-Rate
funding or district funding made available due to telecommunication discounts provided
by the E-Rate program. Additional research included an in-depth analysis of current
Intemet connectivity of each school in the school district in Central Oregon. A complete
review of the school district's computer network from 1998 until 2008 was undertaken to
determine what changes occurred during this time and how they related to the E-Rate
program and Intemet Access.
69
Assumptions
As I studied the impact of the E-Rate program on a school district in Central
Oregon, I made several assumptions that were tied to the diffusion of innovation, which
would hold true throughout the study. The first assumption was that there was a
relationship between the use of the E-Rate support program by the school district and its
increased use of the Internet. Second, I believed that my study of the current level and use
of Internet connectivity to each school in the local school districts would provide
necessary empirical data. This data would demonstrate that the E-Rate program had
achieved its intended goal as defined by the original federal legislation. Finally, I felt that
the diffusion of the Internet into each school district via the government's E-Rate
program would be similar to other technological innovations that have been adopted in
the K-12 educational setting.
Choosing Qualitative Research
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the E-Rate program in one
Central Oregon school district. There are several ways of doing social science research
like this study. Each strategy has strengths and weaknesses depending on specific
conditions, such as the type of research question being asked, the control the investigator
has over the events, and the focus of the study (Yin, 2003).
Studying a national government effort such as the E-Rate program begs the
questions of how and possibly why the program did or did not work in a specific area of
the country such as Central Oregon. Did this diffusion of an innovation in education via a
70
government program parallel or diverge from similar efforts in this country? A case study
lends itself very well in trying to determine why or how a program has or has not worked.
This is because case studies have a distinct advantage when a "how" or "why" question is
being asked about a contemporary set of events over which the investigator has little or
no control (Yin, 2003.) Understanding how an individual school district used the revenue
it received from the E-Rate support program tells us how the program was implemented
in this local school district.
Research Design
Initially, to investigate these questions, I created a multiple case study. I believed
at first that each school in one school district would have a direct impact and/or say in
how the Internet and World Wide Web might be integrated into their school with the use
of the E-Rate program. I came to find in my initial investigations that this was not the
case and the decisions for each school were made by one or two persons in the district
office of the Crook County School District. Therefore, to continue my investigation of
these questions, I decided to create a single case study.
The overall design followed guidelines provided by Yin (2003). A single case
study does not provide a sound basis for broad educational practices. In this specific
study, a case study was appropriate because several specific conditions were present.
There are three conditions in which case study design is called for: (a) research questions
with a "how" and a "why" focus, (b) the study is of a contemporary event, and (c) the
71
study has a lack of control by the researcher over the phenomenon being studied (Yin,
2003).
The research questions that are used were "what" (descriptive), "how," and
"why," and were appropriate in this case study because they could only be answered by
the people involved in the original implementation and use of the Internet and the World
Wide Web in the individual school district.
The E-Rate program is a contemporary phenomenon. To understand whether this
federal program was successful in diffusing a new technology in a school district it is
necessary to determine how individual schools were connected to the Internet, how the
internal LANs were implemented, what amount of money was spent to make this happen,
and to determine whether the E-Rate program was successful (in this case study) in
diffusing a new technology such as the Internet.
This study was a single case design and a Type I case study as defined by Yin
(2003). It should be noted that this researcher was involved in the diffusion of this new
technology either directly or indirectly in many school districts in several states. With my
experiences starting an ISP in one school district and my involvement with OPEN as an
ESD Superintendent, I have the credibility and expertise that was welcomed by
participants. I believe this credibility led to staff and others to be direct and thorough in
their responses to my questions and requests for information.
While this credibility and expertise might be welcomed, it can be a source of bias
in this type of research. Being a participant-observer provided me with a special mode of
observation. I was not merely a passive observer. In some cases, I was involved in
72
meetings and discussions about the connection of the Internet to schools in Central
Oregon and in the use of the E-Rate program. I believe any possible concerns about bias
were addressed by the use of multiple sources of evidence collected in this study and the
chain of evidence that it provided.
Case studies can be messy, ambiguous, time-consuming and creative all at the
same time. The data collection and the analysis are not always neat nor do they proceed
in a linear fashion. But this type of study can provide general statements about the
relationships between different categories of data (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). While
some of the data were available via public resources such as the federal government,
some of it came from the participants that were involved in the decisions on how to use
the E-Rate dollars to attempt to diffuse a new technology in their school district. This
included the school district superintendent, the district technology director and the
business manager for the school district. Collecting some of the data from these folks
allowed me a glimpse into the educator's perspective, as he or she was directly involved
in the E-Rate program itself.
In this case study, criteria was used that would demonstrate the credibility of the
methods used and the findings that were discovered. This was because most case study
findings are not judged by traditional quantitative notions of validity and reliability (Gall,
Gall, & Borg, 1999).
The first criterion was the chain ofevidence. In good case study research it should
be relatively easy for any reader to follow the chain of evidence from the purpose
73
statement to the research questions to the analysis of the findings and, finally, to the case
study conclusions (Yin, 2003).
Another reason for using a case study model was that the E-Rate program has
been in existence for 10 years. During that time, people and conditions have changed in
the various schools in the school district. Case studies use fieldwork so that researchers
can interact with the participants involved, in the setting in which the decisions were
made, and infer concepts from phenomena that are observed.
Site Selection
There are currently eight school districts in Central Oregon. These districts range
in size from Ashwood, with three students, to the Bend-La Pine Schools, with a current
enrollment of over 15,000 students. The other school districts in Central Oregon include
Black Butte, Sisters, Redmond, Culver, Madras, and Crook County. In the state of
Oregon, 38% of school districts have enrollments ofless than 500 students. An additional
38% of the school districts have between 500 and 3,000 students. School districts with
student enrollments of 3,000 to 10,000 make up 18% of the school districts. School
districts with more than 10,000 students make up only 6% of the total number of school
districts.
In Central Oregon, two school districts have fewer than 500 students, two school
districts have between 500 and 3,000 students, three districts have between 3,000 and
10,000 students, and one district has more than 15,000 students.
74
I chose the Crook County School District for this case study because it was more
representative in student enrollment for school districts in Oregon than the other school
districts in Central Oregon. Crook County School District enrollment has just over 3,000
students and is rural in nature. Since most of the school districts in Oregon are rural and
have 3,000 or fewer students, I believed studying this school district would have more
potential comparability to 76% of the districts in the state than to the 24% of the districts
that are much larger and urban in nature.
Sources of Data
I collected national, state, and local data on E-Rate reimbursable expenditures for
each school over a 10-year period, from January 1998 to December 2007. This
reimbursable expenditure data was collected from the Universal School Administrative
Program, the Oregon State Department of Education and the local school district.
Physical assets, such as routers and switches, and maps ofLANs were collected in
conjunction with the High Desert ESD, which provides Internet connectivity to the
school district. I collected data and schematics on the network design for each school
district as it ties into the ESD regional educational network. I also collected longitudinal
data on the amount ofInternet bandwidth used by the school districts over the 10-year
period. The final document collected was the most recent revision of the school district
technology plan that was submitted for E-Rate purposes to the Oregon Department of
Education.
75
Data Collection
Primary data collection took place over a 10-week period lasting approximately
from August I to October 15,2007. School district data was collected with the help of the
district's technology director, business manager, and superintendent. Other data was
collected online via federal and state sources tied to the E-Rate program.
Analysis
Construct validity was addressed in the study by using multiple sources of
evidence during the data collection process to triangulate and corroborate the use ofE-
Rate funding dollars by the school district. This also helps establish the chain of
evidence. This data was collected from the business office of the school district, from the
Oregon Department of Education, the Schools and Library Corporation and the Umatilla
Morrow ESD. Data on bandwidth utilization for each school was collected for each
school year over a 1O-year period. The draft data on each school was reviewed and
revised where necessary by key district staff, as a form of member checking.
ValidityIReliabili ty
Multiple techniques ensured the validity and reliability of data collected and the
subsequent analysis. Triangulation of the multiple data sources ensured rigorous and
systematic data analysis. Data was gathered using multiple sources of information to
compare usage of the E-Rate program in the district. The replicability of this study relied
on systematic data collection and reporting and on the reliability of the instrumentation
76
used (Rossman & Rallis, 1998). This included the creation oftrackable decisions with
copies of paper forms, audit trails, logs, memos and/or emai1s.
Time series analysis was used as an analytical technique in this case study, which
strengthens internal validity. This allowed for tracking changes in the school district
network and bandwidth utilization over time, which can be a major strength in case
studies (Yin, 2003). External validity was addressed by using Rogers' theory on the
diffusion of innovation in this case study. This allows analytical generalization to be used
to generalize a set of results to some broader theory.
Finally, reliability was addressed making the collection of data from multiple
sources as operational as possible and creating a case study spreadsheet of the data
collected.
Implications
The United States has spent over $21 billion as part of the E-Rate program during
the last 10 years. The purpose of this research was to determine the impact of this type of
financial investment in one rural school district in Central Oregon in relation to the
original intent of the federal legislation. The original intent of the legislation for schools
was to improve the workforce and provide additional educational opportunities to
students. Does this type of federal intervention in telecommunications really work in a
rural setting in Central Oregon? Did the diffusion of the Internet via the E-Rate program
parallel or diverge from other past government efforts to diffuse innovations in K-12
schools in the United States? This study shows whether this type of federal program was
successful in the diffusion of a new technology in one rural school district in Oregon.
77
Summary
Change is a common thread throughout schools in the United States. The process
of diffusion and change in schools can be studied within the framework of Rogers' work
on diffusion of innovation. The data collected from USAC and the Crook County School
District, along with other sources, is used to determine if the Telecommunications Act of
1996 was successful in diffusing the Internet to one rural school district in the state of
Oregon.
78
CHAPTER V
DATA REPORTING AND ANALYSIS
This case study on the diffusion of the Internet and the World Wide Web via the
federal E-Rate program in the Crook County School District brought to the forefront data
that I believe can be used not only to compare this district with other rural school districts
but with other types of diffusion efforts mentioned in Rogers' (2003) book on the
diffusion of innovations. Between 1995 and 2001, OPEN was able to facilitate Internet
connectivity to almost all schools in the state of Oregon via a network of Educational
Service Districts providing network connections, usually via Qwest and local ISPs.
Funding for this effort was initially provided by the local school districts and ESDs. I
personally attended and was involved directly in many meetings and discussions on how
local ESDs were contracting with telecommunication carriers to provide direct
connections to local school districts and their schools via the local ESD. The local ESD
would work with the local districts on providing the network management for the
connections to the schools and the Internet via the ESD. This included cost sharing
regionally for necessary network equipment such as routers, switches and servers, and for
technical staff to manage the regional and school district computer networks.
Between 1995 and 2001 these local and regional networks were enhanced by state
legislation that built upon OPEN's statewide network to provide video conferencing for
educational purposes via dedicated Tl lines to all the high schools in the state. The 1999
----------- ._-_._._---
79
Oregon Legislature enacted Senate Bill 622, a telecommunications act that provided
funds, through QWEST Communications, to the Oregon Department of Education (ODE)
for the purpose of building connectivity infrastructure and providing videoconferencing
hardware for all of Oregon's high schools and Education Service Districts (OAESD). A
dedicated frame relay video network was deployed and included schools and ESDs as
they were installed to the Network and equipped with videoconferencing equipment.
Video conferencing systems were provided to all 287 Oregon high schools and ESDs on
an as-ready basis. The network installation process began in May, 2000, and was
completed December 31, 2001. The result was the completion of the Oregon Access
Network, one of the first statewide IP video networks in the nation and one of the largest
of its kind. Another result of the legislation was the completion of a statewide data
network for all Oregon schools, bringing high-speed Internet access to every school
building in the state. This completed the OPEN development of high-speed connectivity
for K-12 schools, bringing a direct connection to the data network for every remote or
underserved area in the state (Bunn & Campbell, 2002).
The success of OPEN for most of the schools in the state was tied not only to
direct funding by the legislature but also to the advent of the E-Rate program, which
started to distribute money to telecommunication providers via local school district
connections in 1998.
While OPEN was successful in achieving its initial mission, it was not long before
large differences between the quality and speed of Internet connections in and out of
schools became a problem in Central Oregon and across the state. Certain schools in parts
80
of rural Oregon were connected to the Internet but may have had only a 56k connection.
In other parts of the state, particularly urban areas, it was not uncommon for schools to
connect to cable or fiber networks that provided network connections at speeds of 10
megabits (Mb) to 100 Mb with the potential of connections up to 1,000 Mb or more. This
meant that while all schools were connected to the Internet, they each did not have access
to the same level and quality of materials available on the World Wide Web. This
inequality was an example of the digital divide. In 1996, approximately 50% of the
schools in the United States had access to the Internet (Coley, Cradler, & Engle, 1997).
Administrators in the Crook County School District decided in 1998 to use the E-
Rate program to help discount their connectivity costs via the OPEN network as
evidenced by their initial E-Rate application filed during this year. In addition, they
decided to use the funding program to build out their school district wide area network
and their individual school networks. Before they could move forward with the E-Rate
process that is described in Chapter II, they had to complete and submit a technology plan
to the State of Oregon and determine their discount rate via the federal discount matrix
used by the federal E-Rate program.
The school district administration submitted their district technology plan to the
State Department of Education and received approval of the plan. The plan had to meet
the minimum requirements of the E-Rate program. A copy of the Crook County School
District Technology plan, which has been revised since 1998, is attached as an addendum
to this dissertation (Appendix A). The district's plan met federal requirements and was
approved by the State of Oregon. The plan had to meet specific goals, which were
81
specified in their technology plan. Excerpts from the plan follow which demonstrate how
the district was meeting required guidelines for approval of their technology plan.
Clear goals and a realistic strategyfor using telecommunications and information
technology.
Crook County School Districts technology plan goals are as follows:
• The district will enhance technology and support by researching, developing,
and maintaining infrastructure and programs that support the needs of the
staff, students, and community.
• To provide the best possible use of technology the district will acquire,
upgrade, and replace hardware and software to enhance administrative and
instructional needs.
• To improve the utilization of technology in the classroom and to enhance
student achievement, the district will provide staff development.
• To enhance student achievement the district will provide curriculum and best
practices for instruction using technology.
• To develop, enforce and monitor policy development for staff, students, and
community.
A professional development strategy to ensure that staffknows how to use these
new technologies.
• Develop hiring criteria that will include competency in technology skills.
• Develop and distribute a survey yearly to determine staff development needs.
82
• Provide staff development in the use of administrative hardware and software
(Schoolmaster, Windows, Mastery in Motion, Schoolmaster Grade book,
Follett, Microsoft Office, Renaissance Learning, etc.) as needed.
• Provide staff development in the use of educational hardware and software
(PLATO, Accelerated Reader, STAR, Office, Web-based resources, etc.) as
needed.
• Provide opportunities for staff to attend conferences related to the use of
technology in the classroom.
• Provide a technology staff development consultant to teachers and to
coordinate training through the curriculum department that schedules
activities throughout the year.
An assessment ofthe telecommunication services, hardware, software and other
services needed and a sufJicient budget to acquire and support the non-discounted
elements ofthe plan - the hardware, software, professional development, and other
services that will be needed to implement the strategy.
Both of these goals are addressed in the Technology Replacement and Upgrade
Proposal section of the most recent technology plan submitted.
• Based on the numbers reported on the Oregon Fall Report, Crook County has
730 networked computers available to staff and students. The enrollment as of
March 2006 is 3145 students in grade K through 12. In addition, the district
provides one computer in every classroom and, beyond that, a ratio of one (l)
computer for every five (5) students.
83
• Using 700 computers as the basis for determining replacement cost and
placing the district on a 5-year cycle, Crook County School District would
replace 120 computers (20%) per year at the cost of approximately $700 per
computer.
• Replacement Priorities: In December 2005, the district technology committee
recommended the following priorities for use of the replacement fund. The
committee endeavored to look to upgrade high school and middle school labs
on a two-year rotation-60 computers with Windows 2000 (or greater) and
Office 2000 (or greater). (Computers will be recycled to elementary schools.)
• Recycled computers will be distributed on an equal basis with no more than
50% being dedicated to teacher use, therefore assuring a minimum of 50%
being dedicated to student use.
• Develop elementary labs/classrooms to maintain a 5 to 1 ratio (approximately
75+ student computers per building).
• Replace teacher computers at the rate of 20% per year using building funding,
technology funding, and federal funding when available.
• Assess the specific needs of personnel to determine the placement of
replacement computers, as reflected in individual building technology plans.
• As funds become available:
o Purchase proj ectors, scanners, cameras, and laser printers as per building
technology plan.
84
o Purchase wireless access points to provide access throughout the building
as per building technology plan.
o Maintain two networked computers per classroom at the elementary
schools.
• Network Upgrade/Replacement:
o Networking Equipment must be upgraded on a 5-year cycle. Currently
routers and switches are being replaced for a total cost of $120,000.
o We are considering a change to wireless access/fiber. The approximate
costs of this conversion would be $ 250,000.
o Switches and routers currently being purchased are Voice over IP
compatible. There will be an additional cost of $ 75,000 for purchasing
Voice over IP telephones.
An evaluation process that enables the school or library to monitor progress
toward the spec~fzed goals.
• The district technology department and technology coordinator will use the
above indicators for twice-yearly meetings (December and May).
• Using the PlanIDo/Study/Act process of continuous improvement, the
technology department in conjunction with building principals will detennine
needs and revisions for maintenance, acquisition, staff development,
curriculum and instruction, and policies.
• Recommendations for purchasing and revisions to the plan will be made each
March prior to budgeting.
85
The next step for the Crook County School District was to detennine what the
discount rate was going to be for the E-Rate program. This was determined by using the
E-Rate discount matrix and gathering free and reduced lunch rates for the school district.
When a school district is applying for E-Rate discounts on eligible services via Fonn 471,
the school district must calculate the percentage discount that the district is eligible to
receive. Table 3 explains how school districts detennine their district discount rate.
Table 3
Discount Matrix
INCOME URBAN LOCATION RURAL LOCATION
Measured by % of students
eligible for the National Discount Discount
School Lunch Program
If the % of students in your ... and you are in an ... and you are in a
school that qualifies for the URBAN area, your RURAL area, your
National School Lunch discount will be ... discount will be...
Program is ...
Less than 1% 20% 25%
1% to 19% 40% 50%
20% to 34% 50% 60%
35% to 49% 60% 70%
50% to 74% 80% 80%
75% to 100% 90% 90%
Every school or library in the United States is located in either a mral or an urban
area, based on Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) data. School districts must detennine
86
if each school or library is rural or urban in order to properly calculate its percentage
discount. Calculations for percentage discounts are always based on data - including
rural or urban status - at the level of an individual school or library building (USAC,
2006). The USAC determined that the entire Crook County and, in tum, the Crook
County School District qualified as a rural school district for the E-Rate program.
In addition to establishing whether a school district is either rural or urban, a
school district must calculate their free and reduced lunch rate for the school district to
determine their actual E-Rate discount. This portion of the formula must be calculated
based on federal free and reduced lunch program statistics. The overall rate of the school
district determines the final E-Rate discount based on the previous table. Table 4 shows
the free and reduced lunch rates for the Crook County School District from the 1999-
2000 to the 2006-2007 school years. This information was collected initially by the
school district, repo11ed to the state of Oregon and then sent to the federal government for
final confirmation on the districts free and reduced lunch rate for each year.
Table 4
Free and Reduced Lunch
% Eligible for
Free lunch Reduced free and
School Membership eligible lunch eligible reduced lunch
1999-2000
Cecil Sly Elem. 455 162 72 51.4
School
Crook County High 983 150 53 20.7
School
87
Table 4
Continued
% Eligible for
Free lunch Reduced free and
School Membership eligible lunch eligible reduced lunch
Crook County 711 226 99 45.7
Middle School
Crooked River E1em. 459 158 62 47.9
School
Ochoco E1em. 363 147 58 56.5
School
Paulina Elem. 44 24 4 63.6
School
Powell Butte Elem. 187 38 19 30.5
School
2000-2001
Cecil Sly E1em. 448 144 61 46%
School
Crook County High 970 193 47 25%
School
Crook County 746 242 102 46%
Middle School
Crooked River Elem. 447 181 65 55%
School
Bochco Elem. 387 196 49 63%
School
Paulina Elem. 42 13 6 45%
School
Powell Butte Elem. 158 29 14 27%
School
2001-2002
Cecil Sly Elem. 436 155 74 53%
School
88
Table 4
Continued
% Eligible for
Free lunch Reduced free and
School Membership eligible lunch eligible reduced lunch
Crook County High 1017 188 61 24%
School
Crook County 717 208 101 43%
Middle School
Crooked River Elem. 437 162 59 51%
School
Ochoco Elem. 366 210 62 74%
School
Paulina Elem. 33 19 2 64%
School
Powell Butte Elem. 148 30 14 30%
School
2002-2003
Cecil Sly Elem. 450 193 56 55%
School
Crook County High 971 195 87 29%
School
Crook County 727 253 94 48%
Middle School
Crooked River Elem. 431 187 63 58%
School
Ochoco Elem. 383 210 50 68%
School
Paulina Elem. 30 II 2 43%
School
Powell Butte Elem. 141 34 9 30%
School
89
Table 4
Continued
% Eligible for
Free lunch Reduced free and
School Membership eligible lunch eligible reduced lunch
2003-2004
Cecil Sly Elementary 458 186 68 55%
School
Crook County High 1016 248 102 34%
School
Crook County 701 254 87 49%
Middle School
Crooked River 461 190 61 54%
Elementary School
Ochoco Elementary 387 211 36 64%
School
Paulina Elementary 36 16 5 58%
School
Powell Butte 148 28 12 27%
Elementary School
2004-2005
Cecil Sly Elementary 480 206 55 54%
School
Crook County High 1040 249 101 34%
School
Crook County 677 279 86 54%
Middle School
Crooked River 376 158 63 59%
Elementary School
Ochoco Elementary 417 229 53 68%
School
Paulina Elementary 33 19 4 70%
School
90
Table 4
Continued
% Eligible for
Free lunch Reduced free and
School Membership eligible lunch eligible reduced lunch
Powell Butte 143 20 14 24%
Elementary School
2005-2006
Cecil Sly Elementary 515 225 65 56%
School
Crook County High 1001 251 89 34%
School
Crook County 726 322 118 61%
Middle School
Crooked River 390 176 46 57%
Elementary School
Ochoco Elementary 413 226 53 68%
School
Paulina Elementary 33 18 " 64%.J
School
Pioneer Secondary 57 21 3 42%
Alternative High
School
Powell Butte 160 33 15 30%
Elementary School
2006-2007
Cecil Sly Elementary 544 205 74 51%
School
Crook County High 925 214 92 33%
School
Crook County 716 256 88 48%
Middle School
Crooked River 395 176 52 58%
Elementary School
91
% Eligible for
Free lunch Reduced free and
School Membership eligible lunch eligible reduced lunch
Ochoco Elementary 433 202 45 57%
School
Paulina Elementary 28 20 0 71%
School
Pioneer Secondary 129 38 ") 32%.J
Alternative High
School
Powell Butte 152 31 10 27%
Elementary School
The overall rate, calculated on an annual basis for the Crook County School
District, as based on the free and reduced numbers, ranged from 35% to 49%. Based on
the table used by USAC and the determination that Crook County School District
qualified as a rural school district, the school district discount rate for the E-Rate program
was 70%.
Once the school district knew its discount rate for the E-Rate program and had
their technology plan approved, they then had to move forward with the systematic
process described in Chapter II for the E-Rate program. The success of this particular
process in this school district was also tied to the commitment of staff such as the school
district technology director, school district business manager and, in some cases, the
superintendent of the school district. In the Crook County School District, the technology
director was responsible for the creation of the district technology plan that was
92
supported by key staff members who had an understanding of the Internet and
instructional and informational technology in general.
The technology director became responsible for the entire E-Rate process in the
district but needed support from the business manager to complete his work. The
superintendent was involved in approving the district technology plan and approving the
process and activities that the technology and business staff was required to complete
during a funding cycle. The Crook County technology director and business manager
were involved in the same regional meetings I attended where decisions were made on
how the regional network would be designed and operated by the High Desert ESD. This
infonnation was needed as the school district applied for E-Rate discounts on connections
from their individual schools back to the ESD Network Operation Center. The
technology director and business manager in Crook County School District were
responsible for all steps in the E-Rate process, including:
1. Determine school district eligibility.
2. Develop and get approval of a district technology plan.
3. Start a competitive bidding process.
4. Calculate school and district discounts via free and reduced lunch rates.
5. Determine district-eligible services.
6. Submit the district's application for program support
7. Wait on an application review from USAC.
8. Get the funding decision from USAC.
9. Begin the actual services.
93
10. Invoice USAC for these services.
This process was extremely time consuming the first year of the E-Rate program
for school districts. Many districts looked to their local educational service districts, as
did Crook County, for help and support during the E-Rate process. Because of the
amount of time and energy needed to complete the E-Rate process and the concerns that
individual districts had about completing the process, districts began to use services
provided by local ESDs to help them complete the process. In 1998, the Crook County
School District began using the Umatilla-Morrow Education Service District (UMESD)
to provide this service.
The UMESD provides this E-Rate management services to over 50 school
districts in Oregon and Washington. UMESD files school district and library E-Rate
applications in accordance with Schools and Libraries program rules. This included, but
was not limited to, Forms 470, 471,486,472 and 500. The ESD also works with problem
resolution and program integrity assurance as necessary.
E-Rate Management
The Crook County School District chose to outsource their E-Rate management
because the UMESD service was considered cost-effective and the district had
confidence that someone was auditing the district to make sure key forms filed were sent
in on time. This infoTInation was collected during conversations with the district
technology director and business manager as I collected copies of their different E-Rate
forms. In addition, the ESD became the point of contact for the district for help with E-
94
Rate fonns as well as with USAC. UMESD has been involved with E-Rate since its
inception. The partnership the Crook County School District has with UMESD allows the
following activities to occur as a part of the E-Rate process:
• The school district develops a technology plan and provides the UMESD with
telecom bills and external connection survey.
• UMESD files FOlm 470 on behalf of the school district.
• Vendors respond with bids within 28 days.
• Service provider is selected.
• UMESD files Fonn 471 on behalf of the school district
• SLD reviews request and issues funding commitment letters to UMESD on
behalf of school districts and to vendors.
• UMESD files Fonn 486 on behalf of the school district
• UMESD files Fonn 500: Problem Resolution and PIA. Using Universal
Service funds, the service providers provide discounts or reimbursements to
the school districts.
The business manager's key role in this E-Rate process was working with the
technology director to determine existing telecommunication services that could be part
of the E-Rate program and the current annual costs for these services. In addition, the
business manager would work with the technology director to determine what new
services or equipment was needed, what the costs would be for these services, and
finalize an analysis of how much the school district would need to budget for these
services and how much would be paid for by USAC.
95
The technology director needed to create a long-tenn vision as part of the
technology plan that had to be submitted. This long-term vision included goals and a
strategy for using telecommunications and infonnation technology. This meant that the
plan needed to include how each school was going to be connected to the school district
wide area network and the type of cOlmection. In addition, a road map had to be created
as to what hardware, software, and other services were needed to complete the school
district wide area network and the internal networks in each school.
Along with the technology plan and a business plan, a budget had to be created to
acquire items not covered by the E-Rate program such the hardware, software,
professional development, and other services that would be needed to implement the
strategy. Data was collected that dealt with the telecommunication services that were
requested for each school to implement the Internet via their technology plan. This
information was submitted to USAC and was included in each Form 470 that was filed
by the district by UMESD.
The Schools
With an adopted technology plan and a decision to expand the Internet to all the
schools in the district, the E-Rate became a cost effective way for the school district to
diffuse the Internet to each school. The Director of Technology worked with staff from
the High Desert Education Service District (HDESD) to tie each school into the district
wide area network, which was connected to the Oregon Public Electronic Network. Plans
were made and adopted for the types of connections to each school, the types of networks
96
that would be installed in each school to which individual computers would connect and
allow students to search the World Wide Web via the Internet.
In the fall of 1996, Crook County High School was connected to the Internet via a
frame relay connection back to the Network Operations Center (NOC) of the HDESD in
Bend, Oregon. Expansion of the network was not started until 1998 when the E-Rate
program became available. With a discount rate of 70%, the school district knew that
connecting each of their schools to the Internet would cost them only 30 cents on the
dollar for direct connectivity. They also knew that they would receive a similar discount
for some purchases necessary for them to create their wide area network and their internal
networks in each school. The school district technology plan had to address the following
in each school:
• Type of cabling to use for connection within each of the schools.
• Types of computers to use to transmit data via internal network in each
school.
• Resources to shared across different operating platforms;
• Electronic mail.
• Internet access.
• Purchasing of software licenses.
• Shareware and freeware that could be used.
The implementation of a computer network in each school that was tied to the
district wide area network and in tum was connected to the Internet was driven by the
size of the school, number of students, numbers of classrooms and offices and expected
97
number of computers to be connected to the local area network. Following is the general
location, grades served, and enrollment currently in each school in the Crook County
School District.
• Cecil Sly Elementary is in the center of the city of Prineville and serves
Grades K-5 with a current enrollment of 515 students.
• Crook County High School serves 1,000 students in Grades 9-12 and includes
the entire geographical area of Crook County and the rural, eastern portion of
Deschutes County.
• Crook County Middle School serves 726 students in Grades 6-8. The school
serves the entire County of Crook except for the communities of Powell Butte
and Paulina and the rural, eastern portion of Deschutes County.
• Crooked River Elementary is in the center ofthe city of Prineville and serves
Grades K-5 with a current enrollment of390 students.
• Ochoco Elementary is in the northwest part of the city of Prineville and serves
Grades K-5 with a current enrollment of 413 students.
• Paulina School is located in the community of Paulina and serves the eastern
portion of Crook County. This community school is 50 miles east of the city
of Prineville. The school serves Grades K-8 with a current enrollment of 32
students.
• Pioneer Secondary Alternative High School is in the center of the city of
Prineville and serves students who have not completed high school or passed
98
the GED and are between the ages of 14 and 21. The school was started in
2005 and has a current enrollment of 110 students.
• Powell Butte Elementary School serves the rural community of Powell Butte,
which is 15 miles west of the city of Prineville. The school serves Grades K-8
with a current enrollment of 160 students.
Network Design Over a 10-Year Period
In 1998, the Crook County School District was in the infancy of their efforts to
provide Internet connectivity to schools in their community. In 1998, the schools in the
city of Prineville were connected to the Internet via cable provided by Crestview Cable
Company. This included Crook County High School, Crook County Middle School,
Ochoco, Crooked River, and Cecil Sly Elementary schools. Paulina and Powell Butte
Schools were on dedicated 56k lines provided by Qwest and CenturyTel. The school
district had a frame relay going from the high school to the High Desert Network
Operation Center in Bend. In addition, the district had a frame relay connection to Linn
Benton Lincoln (LBL) ESD's IBM AS400. The school district subscribed at the time to a
student and financial information product provided by the ESD. The cable connections to
each school provided by the cable company were providing minimum levels of
connectivity. The connection speed to each school was less than 1mg, and the district-
aggregated bandwidth to the Internet was less than 1mg and was being provided by a
frame relay connection. During this time period, the school district began to implement
their technology plan, which called for them to build local area networks in each school
99
using Cat (Category) 5 cabling. The district also decided to use an Ethernet as a way to
communicate data over their Cat 5 cabling. RJ9 connection drops were installed into
classrooms and offices, which allowed individual computers to connect via Ethernet
cabling to the school local area network. Figure 2 is a diagram of the design of the Crook
County wide area network during the 1998-99 school year.
Powell Butte 6k
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Crestvle
Cble
Frame
Relay
Frame
relay
High School
Cecil Sly
Middle Schoo
Frame
relay
Pioneer
fj = ~Ft6 _J6]
District Office
56k
Paullina
CCSD Network
1998-1999
Figure 2. Crook County School District network 1998-1999.
During the 1999-2000 school year, the district continued with the same
connections for each school until the equipment for Crestview Cable became inoperable.
The cable company opted not to replace the equipment and the school district was
without a wide area network or any direct connections to the Internet for several months.
100
Only those schools that were not on the Crestview Cable connections continued to be
connected to the Internet.
Network 2000
At this point in time, the Crook County School District chose to purchase all new
routers and switches and install frame relay connections to each school except Paulina
School. These Tl connections were provided by Qwest or CenturyTel. This gave each
school up to a lmg connection to the district office server, which was connected to the
Internet via the High Desert ESD. It was not long before the district had to increase their
connection to the ESD and, in turn, the Internet due to increase demand at each school.
The demand for more bandwidth was being driven not only by additional student and
teacher use in the schools but by outside factors. Due to the increase of bandwidth to each
school site, the district had to increase their connection bandwidth to the ESD with a Tl
connection in 2000.
During the 2001-2002 school year, the state of Oregon began its Technology
Enhanced Student Assessment (TESA), an online state assessment system. Increased
bandwidth due to online testing became an issue at each school, which led the school
district's decision to change their frame relays to point-to-point Tl lines at each school.
For the next few years, the school district continued to use point-to-point Tl lines
for most of their schools except for Paulina School. The school district was starting to see
increased, sustained bandwidth use of the Internet as measured by the HDESD Network
Operation Center. The school district needed to increase their connection from their
101
school district wide area network to the NOC in Bend. Following a recommendation of
the systems engineer of the HDESD, the school district purchased an Optical Carrier
(OC3), which provided 3mb ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) service to the NOC in
Bend on one of the T3s that is part of the OC3. The second T3 was channelized to TIs,
which reduced the cost by about half for transport via Qwest.
Network 2005
In 2005, the school district increased the Paulina School to a T1 line and dropped
the frame relay connection to LBL ESD since they were no longer using the connection
for student and financial information systems. During the next few years, the district
increased their bandwidth to the Internet from the school wide area network from three to
10mg due to increased use of the Internet in the schools. This increase in bandwidth was
being driven by more and more student and staff use of the World Wide Web via the
Internet. Another factor in the increase in bandwidth was the additional numbers of
computers tied to the schools' local area networks, the district wide area network and
eventually the Internet. The number of computers grew from 700 in 1998, to 900 in 2007.
During the 2007-2008 school year, the school district budgeted to increase their
connection to the HDESD NOC and in tum the Internet to 16mg. This increase means
that in a 1O-year time period the district connection speed and demand for the Internet
went from less than 1mg in 1998 to 16mg in 2007. See Figure 3.
102
Powell Butte T-1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
ESDin
Bend
T-3
3 T-1 's
High School
Cecil Sly
Middle Schoo
T-1
-=c-----~
Pioneer
T-1
T-1
T-1
T-1
-~
Ochoco
Paullina
CCSD Network
2007-2008
Figure 3. Crook County School District network 2007-2008.
Crook County School District's connection to the Internet is expected to
dramatically increase during the 2008-2009 school year with the completion of the
district's own fiber optic network that has been built by Bend Broadband. Figure 4 shows
the current design of the Crook County School District network for the 2008-2009 school
year and the near future.
103
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
ESD in:
Bend i
Fiber
High School
Fiber
Middle School
Pioneer
Crooked'River
/
Fiber·
- ~: .::'_-------=:=-------=-.-.:;-.
T-1
Fiber
Ochoeo
Paullina
CCSD Network
2008-2009
Figure 4. Crook County School District network 2008-2009.
E-Rate Reimbursement
The school district started accessing universal service fund dollars via the E-Rate
program in 1998. Table 5 displays the amount ofE-Rate funds requested, how much the
district qualified for and how much they received during this 1O-year time period. These
amounts include ftmds for Internet connectivity, general telecommunication such as
regular phone lines, and internal connection equipment for local area networks and the
school district wide area network.
104
Table 5
E-Rate Reimbursements
FY Req. Funded 486 on Requested Total Total
FRNs FRNs file amount committed disbursed
2007 6 6 6 93,522.10 93,522.10 11,166.46
2006 6 6 6 89,283.16 88,265.24 87,196.89
2005 6 6 6 111,106.43 111,106.43 82,241.09
2004 16 15 15 100,717.61 97,877.91 73,863.99
2003 16 15 15 98,302.66 94,880.92 43,972.83
2002 14 12 12 55,126.51 49,581.06 35,856.15
2001 19 15 14 225,270.45 61,131.68 52,921.43
2000 5 2 2 80,142.20 50,400.00 4,057.60
1999 42,600.00 42,600.00 34,868.55
1998 42,600.00 34,851.60 33,259.33
Table 5 illustrates the amount ofE-Rate reimbursement each year from 1998 until
2007. The relative increase each year is a reflection of increased connectivity to each
school in the district and to the Internet. In addition, the gradual increase is also a
reflection of the district's effort to upgrade and build the local area networks in each
school and complete the construction of their wide area network.
One of the interesting facts that became apparent after studying the E-Rate
reimbursements was that there was a year in which the amount of actual reimbursement
was much lower than any other year in the 1O-year period. During the 2000 school year,
105
the amount that was actually reimbursed was $30,000 less than the previous year and
almost $48,000 less than the next school year. In confirn1ing the accuracy of all of the
data on the E-Rate reimbursements, I contacted the Umatilla MOlTOW Education Service
District, the Oregon Department of Education, and the Universal Services Administration
Corporation. This research confirmed that the statistical information on reimbursements
were COlTect. This led to further questioning to find out why the 2000 school year
reimbursement was so much lower than the year before and the year after. The reason for
the lower reimbursement is that both the school district and the ESD both did not follow
up with a form that needed to be completed by the service provider. Because neither
agency followed up to verify that all forn1s had been submitted in a timely fashion, the
school district did not receive their full discount for services they had qualified for during
that school year. When I shared this infol1nation with the school district technology
director, business manager and superintendent, none of them knew that this had occurred
or the reason for the discrepancy.
In 2007, 10 years after the start of the E-Rate program, the data indicate that the
impact of the program has been dramatic. The school district has received $460,000 in
federal dollars to pay for Internet connectivity and to create their own internal computer
networks. This amount does not include additional dollars the school district may have
spent on their network, computers and software during this time period. But the demand
for more bandwidth to the schools forced the school district to choose to build their own
fiber network without E-Rate funding. This network is owned by the district, will provide
1 GB connection to each school, and will be tied into the HDESD NOC via a Bend
106
Broadband fiber connection. The cost for this build-out was over $250,000 and was
funded by one-time dollars from the district's general fund. This means that in the future
the only discount that the school district will be able to apply for via the E-Rate program
will be the connection from their network to the ESD Network Operations Center. This is
provided by Bend Broadband and is billed on a monthly per-megabit usage rate.
In a 1O-year period, the Crook County School District went from a low speed
connection from their cable company for four sites to a full-blown fiber network for the
entire school district with a minimum Internet bandwidth usage of 16-20mg on a daily
basis. During this period, the school district created an approved technology plm1, applied
for E-Rate funding and received funding at a 70% discount rate. The district also decided
to contract out the E-Rate funding process and paperwork to the Umatilla Morrow ESD
during this same time.
107
CHAPTER VI
ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this study, I investigated one school district's use of the federal E-Rate program
to adopt the innovations of the Internet and the World Wide Web using a diffusion of
innovation theoretical framework. The purpose of this study was to determine whether
the E-Rate program was successful in facilitating one school district to allow their staff
and students to access the "Information Highway" by using funding from the program to
discount telecommunication costs and to build a needed technological infrastructure.
In Chapter IV, I listed several questions that I hoped would be answered about
whether this new federal program was truly successful in diffusing an innovation. The
following are the answers to the first 7 questions based on the information I collected
during my research.
Q.l. What was the status ofInternet connectivity and networking in each school
in the district before the passage ofthe Telecommunications Act of1996?
There was no connectivity at any of the schools in Crook County until OPEN was
created in 1996. Between the time of the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
and 1998 when the E-Rate program was initiated, Internet connectivity and networking
was provided via OPEN and the High Desert ESD. Funding for this effort was provided
by the local school district and the High Desert ESD.
108
Q.2. How much money has the school district receivedfrom the USAC since the
start ofthe E-Rate program?
The district has received over $459,000 via the E-Rate program since 1998.
Q.3. How has the school district used these dollars to provide Internet access to
schools and classrooms?
The district used the funds to discount their telecommunication charges from
Qwest, CenturyTel and other providers. They also used the money to help purchase
needed network equipment such as routers, switches and servers to build their own school
wide area network in addition to individual school area networks.
Q. 4. What is the status ofInternet connectivity to and within each school in the
Crook County School District?
As of the 2008-2009 school year, the school district has a fiber connection to
every school in the district except for Paulina Elementary School. The district also has a
fiber connection back to the High Desert ESD Network Operation Center that is co-
located in the Bend Broadband facility in Bend, Oregon. They are currently using E-rate
funding to discount charges for Internet connectivity for 16mg of bandwidth.
Q.5. What is the status ofnetworks in each school in the district?
Each school has a high-speed network based on Cat 5 cabling and is connected by
district wide standardized equipment bought from Cisco Systems.
Q. 6. What is the current use ofthe Internet in each school?
Each school except for Paulina Elementary has the ability to transmit data at a rate
of lOB. The network design for Crook County School District consolidates all of their
109
traffic to Internet to one spot in the district that is then connected to the High Desert ESD
NOC in Bend. At the CUlTent time, the total bandwidth demand for the Internet is 16mg
and growing. In comparison, their total bandwidth demand to the Internet in 1998 was
Img.
Q. 7. Did the use ofE-Ratefunding at each school have a direct impact on the
level ofuse ofthe Internet in the school district?
Analysis of the E-Rate forms filed and the amount of money received by the
district for telecommunications discounts show that the district became increasingly
dependent on higher reimbursement rates from the federal program as their demand for
bandwidth increased. Statements made by the technology director, superintendent and
business manager in conversations during regional meetings confirmed that they believe
they would not have the current network structure or design, or the capability to increase
Internet usage without the E-Rate funding provided by the federal government.
The final question that I asked early on in this research was whether the diffusion
of the Internet via the E-Rate program in the Crook County School District paralleled or
diverged from predicted results based on past research of the diffusion of innovations in a
K-12 educational environment. In respect to Rogers' (2003) model of the diffusion of
innovation, the federal E-Rate program became the change agent for the implementation
and adoption of the Internet in this school district. This meant that the primary change
agent was from outside the school district and, in this specific case, from outside the
world of education. This is just another example of the federal government being the
initiator of an innovation.
110
For each school, I looked at the data collected on E-Rate reimbursements and the
type of Intemet connectivity to each school. I also examined the amount of bandwidth
that was being aggregated by the district wide area network and was being transmitted to
the Intemet via a connection to the High Desert ESD. This meant that some of the data
that was collected at this point in my study came in what Rogers describes as "the
beginning of the conversion stage" of diffusing a new innovation. Data collected in the
last few years was related to a time when the innovation was fully adopted and may
actually have been re-invented or, in the case of the Crook County School District, led to
the current installation of a fiber optic network. Success of the diffusion of the Intemet
into the Crook County School District was tied to the district and the service provider's
ability to complete specific regulatory forms over a prescribed time period on an annual
basis.
I believe that the diffusion of the Intemet to schools and libraries occurred
relatively quickly compared to some other studies quoted by Rogers. It only took 4 years
for classroom Intemet access to increase from 3% to 93% on a national level (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2005). In several of the Rogers' studies that I used for
comparison, the adoption rates for innovations ranged from 6 to 50 years. In the Crook
County School District, it took only 2 years for the district to go from having one Intemet
connection at the High School to achieving a connection to all of their school. Moreover,
it only took 9 years for the district to realize their dream. In this brief time span, Crook
COlmty Schools were able to conveli their vision into a reality. They accomplished their
111
mission by building their own district wide fiber network while also maintaining
ownership.
In Rogers' fifth edition of Diffusion ofInnovations, he comments on several
diffusion studies that have relevance to this study. These studies included the diffusion of
modem math in Pittsburgh, the worldwide diffusion of kindergarten, and the adoption of
new communication technologies. Each of these studies spoke to different factors that
affect the diffusion of an innovation.
The study on the adoption of new math speaks to the role of the opinion that
leaders hold in the adoption of an innovation. The second study spoke to re-invention of
the innovation of kindergartens by different nations. The other studies dealt with the
diffusion of new communication technologies. One of these latter studies dealt with a
Finnish company who found that a great deal of time and effort was required by
employees to learn how to use a new technology; specifically, the personal computer.
Another study found that allowing employees to play games on a computer reduced their
anxiety toward their usage of the computer in the work place. Finally, Volvo did a study
on the use of email in their corporation starting in the 1980s. They found that a
considerable period of time was required for the diffusion process. The innovation
process did not occur quickly even when the administration was highly supportive of the
effort.
My study on the diffusion of the Internet via the E-Rate program paralleled some
of the studies mentioned in Rogers' 2003 book. In this study, it became very obvious
early on that all the decisions on whether to adopt this new technology and to use the E-
112
Rate program were limited to just a few key decision makers in the school district. The
responsibility for executing the technology decision was shared by the superintendent and
technology director. This decision-making model kept some key stakeholders, such as
building principals and the teaching staff, out of the adoption process. This choice may
have delayed the full implementation and use of the Internet and the World Wide Web in
Crook County. Skepticism and/or anxiety is less likely to occur when more players on a
team are involved in the decision-making process. Many of the staff in this district were
not involved in the decision. This may have led to staff being more resistant to the change
and slowed the process in achieving the eventual adoption of the new technologies. I
learned that increasing district staff involvement in the discovery stage allows for
persuasion of a group to occur more quickly. Staff involvement early on invites them to
learn the advantages of the innovation. Less staff involvement may have led to resistance
to buy in.
The difference in this study from other aforementioned studies was that the
federal government was offering financial incentives to help school districts connect to
the Internet. There were no financial incentives provided by the federal government for
school districts to adopt the modern math curriculum or a kindergarten program. The
adoption of these programs seems to have been more driven by opinion leaders or the
perceived need to imbue national values in young children.
As in any study on the diffusion of innovation using Rogers' work, you can
identify how one school district mayor may not have fallen into different categories of
adopters. Diffusion research has shown many differences between earlier and later
113
adopters of innovations, including socioeconomic status, personality variables and
communication behaviors. These differences can be used to devise strategies in which
communication channels can be used to address different adopter categories.
I knew from personal experience that each of the local school districts in Central
Oregon were at various stages in their implementation of the Internet in their schools
during the 1990s. Having been the Principal of Sisters High School from 1992-1999 and
the Superintendent of the High Desert ESD since 2000, I was involved directly or
indirectly with many of the discussions and decisions made about the diffusion of the
Internet and the World Wide Web in our local schools and school districts. Some of the
local schools had installed high-speed fiber or cable networks in and between their
schools to connect to the Internet. Other schools were dependent on local twisted-pair
cabling for connectivity, which is much slower at transmitting data to individual
computers. This meant that some schools had the ability to transmit large amounts of data
to a large number of computers, while others were limited in the amount of data and
number of computers connected to a network.
An analysis of how different school districts in Central Oregon would have fit
into Rogers' adopter categories shows Sisters School District in the innovators category.
The group of educators who started the school district's OutlawNet ISP were
venturesome and daring enough to create a company that would provide Internet access
to the students of the school district. They were also fortunate to have access to people in
the community who had the financial means to provide the necessary startup dollars for
the ISP.
114
While Sisters High School might have been an innovator in the framework of
Rogers' work, Culver School District could be identified as an early adopter. While their
connection to the Internet was in a similar time period as most of the other Central
Oregon School Districts (except Sisters), they decided to build on this new innovation
and make judicious use of their limited resources by installing a fiber optic network
between their three schools. They were able to do this financially because the cost of
distributing the cable on their single-site campus was very reasonable compared to what
would have been required by other districts. By making this investment, the school
district had placed themselves strategically for the long term in regards to connectivity to
the Internet in and between their schools.
The rest of the school districts in Central Oregon fall into either the early or late
mqjority of adopters in regards to connecting their schools and classrooms to the Internet.
School districts like Bend, Redmond, and Crook County were much more deliberate in
how they connected their schools to the Intemet. They made decisions to connect their
high schools to high-speed broadband connections and then started to connect their
elementary schools to high-speed broadband. There are many reasons for this discrepancy
in deployment of the Intemet in their school districts. These districts were being very
deliberate before completely adopting the idea of Intemet use for all students and staff.
They wanted to see how the Internet was going to be used in other local school districts,
particularly at the elementary level, before making the investment to connect these
schools. And even if they wanted to make the investment, the cost of providing
broadband Internet connectivity to all of their schools became a prioritized decision due
115
to a lack of funds as the state of Oregon went through a recession in the late 1990s and
early 2000s. None of the school districts could be considered laggards, or the last to
adopt access to the Internet and the World Wide Web for their students and staff.
The focus of the study was to determine whether the United States federal E-Rate
Program was successful in diffusing the innovation of the Internet in this one rural school
district. The federal government via the Universal Services Administration Corporation
became the change agent by providing discounts to schools to pay for and access the
Internet based on a sliding scale that was tied the school district's free and reduced lunch
rate. At the outset there was an effort made to include all schools districts in the country
in this diffusion project. The Crook County School District made the decision to be part
of this program at a very high administrative level without involving, for the most part,
building principals and teaching staff. This was due, in part, to the fact that most building
principals and classroom teachers did not have enough understanding in 1998 about the
Internet, its possible uses and how any agency would go about connecting all classrooms
and schools in the district to this new innovation.
While the research shows that the school districts' use of the E-Rate program and
their Internet usage has grown exponentially over the last 10 years, I wonder if the
growth of Internet usage might have been greater and much more aggressive if all the
stakeholders were involved in the decision at the beginning. Were teachers slower to
access the Internet and World Wide Web because they were not originally part of the
decision to do this via the vehicle ofE-Rate program? Were teachers slower to access the
Internet because they were not involved in the early stages of discovery and persuasion
116
and the relative advantage of the Internet, as Rogers argued was needed for the diffusion
of an innovation to be successful? This could be a question for further research if
someone were to follow-up on the results that I present in this dissertation.
In the case of the Crook County School District, their key administrative staff saw
the advantages that leveraging the E-Rate program meant to their school district. After
trying to use the local cable company to meet their needs unsuccessfully, the district took
it upon themselves to create their own solution using E-Rate dollars. After the collapse of
the cable company connection, the following year the district requested almost $250,000
to build their school district and individual school networks. While they were not able to
secure enough funding initially to do this in one school year, they stayed the course over
the years. This long-term vision and the improbable "kick start" they received to do
something creative when the cable company connection went down has led to a school
district that now owns their own fiber optic network.
Moving from having one school connected to a frame relay from Qwest in 1998
to building their own district-wide fiber optic network with district funds is truly an
outstanding accomplishment for a small rural school district. Conversations that occurred
over the last ten years with the district superintendent, technology director and business
manager, confirmed for me that the E-Rate program was key to their moving from a
district with one frame relay connection with Qwest, to now owning and operating their
own fiber network in conjunction with the High Desert ESD. During the last 10 years, the
school district has been able to train staff and students on the use of the Internet and the
World Wide Web. They were able to upgrade their networks and connections to allow
117
more and diverse usage for staff and teachers via the Internet and the World Wide Web.
Their continuous push to use more technology in their schools even gave them the
opportunity to be one of five sites in the state of Oregon to receive funds from the Intel
Corporation to pilot a one to one laptop initiative with their middle school students.
Using Rogers' model allowed me to look at how new innovations evolve
successfully or unsuccessfully in a school district. An understanding of how the diffusion
process works in schools with innovations should be required reading of all educators. I
believe this premise because if we understand how innovations are diffused in a school or
school district we will have an understanding of what issues might hinder the
innovations' implementation in a school. Rogers' work is a wonderful framework to
understand this process and Hall and Hord's work takes it to an even higher level of
understanding of how change works in a school system. Once we understand the
impediments in the innovation adoption process and how the diffusion process works,
schools can use this knowledge to achieve success in adopting innovations.
Limitations of This Study and Recommendations
for Future Research
I believe being a participant-observer in the use of the E-Rate program and the
design and management of the regional network for Central Oregon added strength to this
research. At the same time, I had to be careful that my bias about how this federal
program did or did not work or how the regional network should be managed did 110t
overly impact my collection of data and my communication with key stakeholders in the
118
Crook County School District. For that reason, I tried to be very explicit in documenting
the steps of the process so a reader can reach one's own conclusions.
There are a few suggestions I would make for further study in this area of case
study research. First, I would recommend involving more school districts in the study to
see if the diffusion process they went through was similar to the one that Crook County
School District experienced.
I would like to compare how each district included stakeholders in the decision
process to use the E-Rate program and, if they did include more stakeholders like
teachers and principals in the beginning, whether this involvement increased their use of
the Internet. I would also like to examine if this created more trust, less anxiety, and acted
as a catalyst to reduce the time involved in implementing their technology plan.
Secondly, I would have liked to have compared the decision-making process to
use the E-Rate program within each district while also determining who was really
making the decision to use this federal program. Was the process driven by the
superintendent, the technology director or the business manager? Did their understanding
of the E-Rate program, Internet connectivity and the World Wide Web have an impact on
how much Internet use grew in their school district over a IO-year period?
Finally, I would have liked to have collected data that would have allowed me to
compare the Crook County School District in their use of the E-Rate programs with other
school districts around the state regarding the label they earned as an innovator, an early
adopter or a late adopter.
119
In the future, I would recommend that further study be done to determine the role
or impact that a superintendent of a school district plays in the innovation adoption
process. Does the understanding of the Internet, World Wide Web and communication
technology by a superintendent of a school district affect the speed and successful
adoption of a new technology innovation like the Internet in a school district? Does his or
her understanding of how a technology works lead to greater success in trying diffuse an
innovation in a school system?
This study does show that the use of the E-Rate program in the Crook County
School District was helpful and necessary to diffuse an innovation into this school
district. The amount of bandwidth utilization and capability of individual school networks
increased at each school over the la-year period. What the study does not show is other
factors, which mayor may not have been just as important as the E-Rate money that was
given to the school district to discount their costs to connect to the Internet.
At the beginning of this paper, I wrote about how change was rapid and that the
Internet and the World Wide Web were driving some of this change. I also wrote about
how important it was for federal legislators and the many individuals who have studied
the business of education in the last 30 years that we use technology to prepare our
children for the future. The E-Rate program was seen as a vehicle to connect schools and
their students to the "Information Highway." In the Crook County School District the E-
Rate program did playa large part in helping the school district connect their students to
the Internet. Finally, the E-Rate program was the vehicle that helped the district build its
network and realize the cunent and future need for its own fiber network.
120
The E-Rate program has helped to facilitate student and staff accessibility to more
online resources. The public library system was to my generation what the Internet is to
this current generation. The library was our resource tool for doing research and learning
about the world. It helped us complete school projects and enhance our learning. The
Internet, World Wide Web and the creation of a fiber network infrastructure are very
important innovations for this generation. School district decisions on implementation
and diffusion of these innovations will determine their staff and student outcomes,
whether their district serves an urban or rural population. Attaining more accessibility,
better speed, funding resources, and equality of access to World Wide Web resources is
tantamount to offering students resources for learning in the 21 sl Century. I feel this study
plays an important piece in the puzzle in understanding the history of how a rural school
district began their Internet journey and where it led them. The information gained
provides a resource for others as well as posing questions for other schools engaged in
their own journey. The question yet to be answered is whether the diffusion of this new
innovation is better preparing the students of Crook County for the future. Time will only
tell.
APPENDIX A
CROOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
TECHNOLOGY PLAN
(2006-2008)
121
Table of Contents
Table Of Contents
Executive Summary
Demographics
District Values---Goals
Technology Beliefs
Technology Goals
E-RATE PAGES
ED-TECH Pages
Technology Replacement And Upgrade Proposal
Technology Curriculum-Beliefs
District Technology Policies
Page 122
Page 123
Page 127
Pages 128-129
Page 131
Pages 132-136
Pages 137-139
Pages 140-141
Pages 142-143
Pages 144-147
Page 148
122
IIBG
IIBGA
IIBGA-AR (l)
IIBGA-AR (2)
IIBGA-AR (3)
Action Plans (Goals A-E)
Instructional Technology
Acceptable Use
Acceptable Use
User Responsibilities
Internet Filtering
Page 149
Pages 150-151
Pages 152-154
Pages 155-162
Pages 163-165
Pages 166-173
123
Crook County Technology Plan
Executive Summary
In November of 2000, a group consisting of teachers and technology personnel
began the process of developing a Crook County District Technology Plan. The Initial
purposes were to:
o Development of a technology delivery model
o Determine appropriate practice in network management, maintenance,
and equipment replacement
o Review Staff Development needs
o Create Instruction Goals (curriculum and delivery)
Guided by Crook County's value statement, mission, and goals, the committee
believes that technology facilitates the vision of using skills for success by:
o Providing the opportunity for students to acquire the technical skills
necessary for success in school and in the future
o Accommodating for different learning styles
o Increasing the productivity of teachers in the district
124
Goals
The following goals will help the district meet this vision of technology.
These goals address maintenance of equipment, acquisition and replacement of
equipment, staff development, curriculum and instruction, and policy. The goals are:
A. The district will enhance technology and support by researching, developing, and
maintaining infrastructure and programs that support the needs of the staff, students, and
community.
B. To provide the best possible use of technology the district will acquire, upgrade, and
replace hardware and software to enhance administrative and instructional needs.
c. To improve the utilization of technology in the classroom and to enhance student
achievement, the district will provide staff development.
D. To enhance student achievement the district will provide curriculum and best
practices for instruction using technology.
E. To develop, enforce and monitor policy development for staff, students, and
community.
Each goal has a set of indicators that will be used to monitor the district's success in
meeting these goals.
125
!kP1acement and Upgrades
Replacements and upgrades of equipment and software represent and on going cost
to the district. To meet the goal of maintaining a one computer for every six students, the
committee suggested that the district replace 20% of approximately 600 computers each
year. The committee also suggests the following as replacement priorities:
1. Upgrade high school and middle school labs on a two-year rotation-60
computers with Windows 2000 (or greater) and Office 2000 (or greater).
(Computers will be recycled to elementary schools. Recycled computers will
be distributed on an equal basis with no more than 50% being dedicated to
teacher use, therefore assuring a minimum of 50% being dedicated to student
use.
2. Continue to develop elementary labs/classrooms to maintain a 6 to 1 ratio
(approximately 75+ student computers per building).
3. Replace teacher computers at the rate of20% per year using with both
building funding and technology funding.
4. Replace network equipment as needed, including routers and switches. Begin
installation of fiber optic cables to connect all schools within the Prineville
city limits.
5. Upgrade and purchase administrative, educational, and management software
based on recommendations of the technology committee.
As funds become available:
6. Purchase projectors, scanners, cameras, and laser printers as per building
technology plan.
7. Purchase a set of wireless laptops at each school per building technology plan.
8. Purchase two networked computers per classroom at the elementary schools.
126
Curriculum
Crook County School District will offer a comprehensive technology curriculum
based on the current Oregon Educational Technology Consortium (OETC) Standards.
The district technology committee believes that formal technology training at
grade kindergarten through second grade is not necessary. Students, at those levels,
should focus on the skills of reading and mathematics.
The district will begin a formal technology curriculum at about grade 3. The
curriculum will include: hardware and software identification, keyboarding, and the use
of presentation software basics.
The district believes that with the help of skills learned at home that students will
be ready to succeed in technology classes at both the middle school and high schools as
well as learn skills specific to their own career needs.
Even though the district has policy to guide the use of technology, the technology
committee believes that policy, especially student use policy, must be revised.
127
Crook County Technology Plan
March 2006
Demographics
Community
The Crook County School District resides within a rural community in the center
of the state of Oregon and east of the Cascade mountain range. The county is situated in
the geographical center of Oregon. Crook County encompasses an area of 2, 991 square
miles and ranks 12 among counties in area size. Crook County is the home of
approximately 19,182 people, according to US Census figures. Approximately 8000 of
those people live in the town of Prineville, the only incorporated town in Crook County.
Crook County was the third fastest growing county in Oregon according to 2003 census
data growing by 7.3 % from 2000 - through 2003.
The County is extremely rural, with 50% of the landmass in state or federal
ownership and a density ofjust five people per square mile. The economy of Crook
County is heavily reliant on lumber, the manufacturing of wood products and on tire
production and distribution. Agriculture provides very little full-time, year round
employment and its source of personal income continues to shrink. The school district
comprises approximately 3200 students in grade kindergarten through grade 12, offering
a free appropriate public education to all the school-age children in the area. One high
school of approximately 987 students, one middle school with 700 students, and three
elementary schools with 400 plus students in each are located within the town of
Prineville. The district also supports two rural schools: one in Powell Butte serving 170
kindergarten through sixth grade students and Paulina Elementary located 60 miles out of
Prineville with an enrollment of 46 students in kindergarten through eighth grade.
Crook County ranks 34th out of 37 Oregon counties in the percentage of adults
over 25 years of age with college degrees. Crook County ranks 37th out of 37 counties in
the number of adults over 25 with high school degrees.
128
I. Values
Research indicates that successful nonprofit organizations are value driven.
For this reason, the basis of all planning in CCSD lies in our four value
statements:
o Integrity is vital to our success.
Integrity is the foundation value. Integrity demands honesty, responsibility, and
accountability from everyone in the educational environment. Organizational unity,
communication, and teamwork are hallmarks of our organization.
o We are a dynamic organization.
Everyone in the organization is learning and growing. The desire for life-long
Learning is our most prized result.
o Everyone deserves respect and dignity.
Personal dignity and respect are central to a safe, secure learning environment.
o We expect excellence.
Excellence in life comes from a quality education. We expect continuous quality
improvement in our district.
II. Mission Statement
Crook County School District will make a positive difference by educating and
preparing our youth for excellence today and success tomorrow. Our students, as
outstanding citizens, will change our community, our country, and our world.
III. Vision
CCSD is an organization with integrity, a model for educational success, and a
recognized leader for excellence in preparing its students to be productive citizens
guided by a vision of a successful future.
IV. District Goals
Crook County School District focuses on educating the entire child. It provides
safe facilities, creates pminerships, values people, and presents a broad-based
curriculum to meet the needs of students. The primary emphasis is to teaching
material in the Oregon state Content Standards so that all students progress
toward the Certificate ofInitial Mastery (ClM) and the Certificate of Advanced
Mastery.
To assure focus on student achievement the Crook County School District believes that:
o All Students will read at their grade level.
o All Students will meet grade level math proficiencies in all benchmark areas.
129
o All Students will show grade level proficiency in writing by reaching state scoring
guide standards.
o All Students will graduate from high school.
130
Skills for Success.... Every student is important
Each student
is given the
opportunity
to learn the
basic skills
necessary to
become a life-
long learner
with a vision
of a successful
future.
Crook County values education and is committed to providing
educational opportunity for all. Crook County Schools meets all
children at their ability levels to make students a success in the basic
skills of reading, writing and mathematics as well as the core
curriculum areas.
By planning for the academic, emotional and social needs of
students, all involved in the education of our youth will empower
students to create goals as well as progress toward those goals as life-
long learners with social consciousness and responsibility to provide a
successful future for themselves and the community. Community pride
and high sense of esteem will lead to academic success and minimize
the use of drugs and alcohol as well as reduce teen pregnancy and teen
violence. Students will be mentored by adults in the community toward
success in a well-rounded education that stresses both the basic skills
and exposure and participation in art, music, foreign languages, and co-
curricular sports.
To enable educational success for all, the district will create and
implement a long-term strategic plan for the use of technology.
Technology facilitates the vision of using skills for success by:
• Providing the opportunity for students to acquire the technical skills necessary for
success in school and in the future
• Accommodating for different learning styles
• Increasing the productivity of teachers in the district
The school district believes that technology is integral to curriculum, instruction, and
assessment, and all other areas involved in the learning process. The district will budget
adequate money to maintain current technology and to provide for the ever-changing
needs, including sufficient funds to permit access to all students and to use technology to
deliver student services. In addition, the district will use technology as a key part of both
initial and continuing teacher education to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills
they need to integrate technology into the curriculum and to adapt it to instructional
strategies. The district will encourage and collaborate with employers to provide the
current software, training, and equipment necessary to prepare students for entry into the
workforce. Finally, the district will designate a technology resource person to provide
technical assistance and to consult with the staff to assist them in finding the people,
information, and materials that they need to make best use of technology.
131
Beliefs about Technology
Crook County School District believes that technology should assist in the development
of each student by providing a wide application of technology for learning opportunities
in and outside of the classroom.
District personnel and students value an environment that stimulates learning through the
application of computer technology.
District personnel and students use technology to support student learning.
District personnel structure facilities, technologies, and support systems to promote and
facilitate individual potential.
District personnel must develop mastery of modern technology.
Through technology, the district fosters a positive image of the value of life-long learning
by connecting to the global community.
132
Technology Goals
Crook County School District has five (5) goals for using technology to provide
opportunity for student success, to accommodate different learning styles and to improve
the productiveness of building staffs.
The goals address maintenance of equipment, acquisition and replacement of equipment,
staff development, curriculum and instruction and policy. The goals are:
A. The district will enhance technology and support by researching,
developing, and maintaining infrastructure and programs that support the
needs of the staff, students, and community.
B. To provide the best possible use of technology the district will acquire,
upgrade, and replace hardware and software to enhance administrative and
instructional needs.
C. To improve the utilization of technology in the classroom and to enhance
student achievement, the district will provide staff development.
D. To enhance student achievement the district will provide curriculum and
best practices for instruction using technology.
E. To develop, enforce and monitor policy development for staff, students,
and community.
133
The following indicators will serve as indicators for meeting the district
Maintenance Goal
A. Maintenance
The district will enhance technology and support by
researching, developing, and maintaining infrastructure and
programs that support the needs of the staff, students, and
community.
1. Obtain staffing levels that will ensure support of technology (custodial and
technological) in all schools.
2. Consider specialized technical staff in the areas of software.
3. Develop a strategy for researching, acquiring, and implementing a student
information system.
4. Develop a strategy for implementing the use of V-tel.
5. Monitor a repair request and maintenance scheduling system.
6. Maintain at least one networked computer per classroom.
7. Maintain one computer for every six students in each elementary and secondary
school.
8. Develop a method of budgeting for replacement parts for existing computers.
9. Create and maintain a schedule for cleaning and upkeep of all school labs and
classrooms.
10. Maintain and upgrade educational and administrative software as needed.
11. Promote community involvement through the development and maintenance of
district web pages, parental access to CUlTent student progress (Schoolmaster, Mastery
in Motion).
12. Use newsletters to inform the community of the communication tools available.
134
The following indicators will serve as indicators for meeting the district
Acquisition, Upgrade, and Replacement Goals
B. Acquisition, Upgrade and Replacement
To provide the best possible use of technology the district will acquire,
upgrade, and replace hardware and software to enhance administrative
and instructional needs.
1. Research and acquire equipment for utilization and management of fiber optic WAN
technology in keeping with current opportunities.
2. Upgrade and replace PC hardware to a minimum level ofP3.
3. Update all PC's to Windows 2000 (or greater) and Office 2000 (or greater).
4. Maintain a ratio of one student computer for every six students.
5. Research the availability of PC educational software and develop a software
evaluation strategy.
6. Develop a plan to replace 20% of all district computers.
7. Upgrade data gathering hardware and software as necessary.
8. Continue to provide systems integration of administrative, library and special
program software.
9. The district will support the needs of specialized curricula (specially designed
instruction for special education students and advanced high school technologies).
10. Encourage the development of innovative strategies through Perkins funding and Ed
Tech funding as resources become available.
135
The following indicators will serve as indicators for meeting the district
Staff Development Goal
C. Staff Development
To improve the utilization of technology in the classroom and to
enhance student achievement, the district will provide staff
development.
1. Develop hiring criteria that will include competency in technology skills.
2. Develop and distribute a survey yearly to determine staff development needs.
3. Provide staff development in the use of administrative hardware and software
(Schoolmaster, Windows, Mastery in Motion, Schoolmaster Grade book, Follett,
Microsoft Office, Renaissance Learning, etc.) as needed.
4. Provide staff development in the use of educational hardware and software (PLATO,
Accelerated Reader, STAR, Office, Web-based resources, etc.) As needed.
5. Provide opportunities for staff to attend conferences related to the use of technology
in the classroom.
6. Provide a technology staff development consultant to teachers and to coordinate
training through the cUlTiculum department that schedules activities throughout the
year.
The following indicators will serve as indicators for meeting the district Curriculum
and Instruction Goal.
D. Curriculum and Instruction
To enhance student achievement the district will provide curriculum and
best practices for instruction using technology.
1. Adopt standards and cUlTicu1um for grades K-12.
2. Develop a plan for cUlTicu1um delivery.
3. Research devices (projectors, white boards, ELMO, etc.) necessary for classroom and
library use of technology.
Provide technology instruction as it relates to graduation requirements.
136
The following indicators will serve as indicators for meeting the district Policy Goal.
E. POLICIES
To develop, enforce and monitor policy development for staff, students, and
community.
1. Determine district purchasing and platform policy.
2. Review / revise an acceptable network use policy and procedure.
3. Complete an annual review of district Internet and e-mail policy.
4. Create a policy for the acquisition of software.
5. Infornl staff and students of copyright laws.
Evaluation
The district technology department and technology coordinator will use the above
indicators for twice-yearly meetings (December and May).
Using the Plan/Do/Study/Act process of continuous improvement, the technology
department in conjunction with building principals will determine needs and revisions for
maintenance, acquisition, staff development, curriculum and instruction, and policies.
Recommendations for purchasing and revisions to the plan will be made each
March prior to budgeting.
E-rate
Based on the 2004 data, Crook County School District uses e-rate to pay for
connectivity, both through landlines and high-speed access lines.
This cOlmectivity provides opportunity for students to access information to
improve skills in relation to gathering the information.
Staff uses several web-based programs (Mastery in Motion, Schoolmaster,
Accelerated Reading, Star Math, etc.) to both track student information and provide
instruction.
The district does not qualify for services or functions listed under Internet
Connections and pays for this cOilllectivity.
137
138
Crook County School District
Technology Plan Addendum for fiscal years 2006 - 2008
E-Rate Eligible Products and Services
Telecommunications Services 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Pre-discoun Pre-discoun Pre-discoun
Service or Function Quantity and/or Capacity Cost (est.) Cost (est.) Cost (est.)
Local and long distan 120 phones 59,202 05,122 71,634
High speed access lin Regional Lines (3 + Bandwidth) 09;358 76, (tJo 83,923
Mobile telephone sel'J 2 phones 3,000 3,Juu ::l,ti::lU
Paging service 4 Users
Video Conferencing 6 Licensed
Internet Access
Pre-discoun Pre-discoun Pre-discoun
Service or Function Quantity andfor Capacity Cost (est.) Cost (est.) Cost (est.)
Dedicated Internet ac 30 Mbps 0 U 0
Internet access servic N/A
Internal Connections
Pre-discoun Pre-discoun Pre-discoun
Service or Function Quantity andfor Capacity Cost (est.) Cost (est.) Cost (est.)
Upgraded LAN equipn N/A 15,000 16,500 lel,lbU
LAN cable and/or wirE N/A 266,738 LS,uUU 25,00U
Internet access servic N/A 5,800 6,Jelu (,OHJ
LAN maintenance 15 devices -swithes, routhers, firewall 2,000 2,LUU L,4LU
Telephone system me 19 devices for VoIP/WAN
Total pre-discou;.;,nt;.,c:-o~s;,;,t.::;(e;,;,st?')+-_""';1i"i'll'-/- __~m__~1'll7'l
Average Discou;;.;n.:,.tR:..;,a~t.:,.e.::;(e;,;,st,;;;')+-...,.,~~,+-_"'I"'I':~I'7d_....,.., ...........l
Total Post-discount Cost (est.)~":"";";~~_':""-....L.._"";""....L._""";"'.....J
Ineligible Technology Support Resources
139
N
00
Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted
Service or Function Quantity and/or Capacity Cost (est.) Cost (est.) Cost (est.)
Hardware (computers 6 Intel Servers 35,000 ~o,4UU 37,85t
Software (ineligible) Linux, MS, Cuda License 21,750 22,bLU n,oL£1
Professional developr 4 Training Classes 2,000 2,utlu L,lb::
Maintenance (ineligibl 4 servers
Network Intrusion Pre Hardware + Contract (1) ~:OOO o,LUU 5,4UI:
Rack & Lab Equipmer 3 Monitors
Power / UPS Equipme 3 UPS Devices and misc. 1,000 1,U4U 1,Utl
Upgraded LAN equipr 10 Routers / Switches / Misc. 15,L1:52 15,tl~j 1tj,bL~
Cabling and Other Mi Misc.
Backup Media 20
Other Consumables a Operating Supplies & Materials LOO LbU LbU
Total Support Cost (est.)1 86,2821 83,4931 86, 8311
Total E-rate & Support Cost (est.)1 206,6111 148,0821 150,3631
ESD Resol 6,798 7,001 7,212
Title 110 9,260 9,260 9,260
General fu 754,345 498,155 512,349
770,403 514,416 528,821
Ed Tech Funds
Crook County School District using the majority of its Ed tech funds to hire an elementary technology coordinator. See below
2005-2006 CIP Budget
Narrative/Spending Workbook
Enhancing Education Through Technology,
Titlell-D
Purpose: The purposes of Title II - D, Ed Tech program are to:
• Assist districts in implementing a comprehensive system that effectively uses technology in schools to improve student
academic achievement.
• Support high-quality professional development programs that enable schools to effectively integrate technology into curriculum
and instruction aligned with state academic standards and Instructional Technology Common Curriculum Goals;
• Enhance ongoing professional development for teachers, principals, and administrators by providing constant access to
training and updated research in teaching and learning through electronic means such as, but not limited to, Oregon's Teaching
and Learning Resources; (http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachleam/standards/center/)
• Assist districts in the acquisition, development, interconnection, implementation, improvement, and maintenance of an effective
educational technology infrastructure in a manner that expands access of technology to students (particularly disadvantaged
students) and teachers;
• Support the rigorous evaluation ofprograms regarding the impact of Ed Tech programs on student academic achievement,
and ensure the results are widely accessible through electronic means.
Link to Allowable Activities: For a complete list of allowable programs and activities, please click on
http://www.ed.gov/programs/edtech/guidance.doc
List all activities funded, one activity per row. Add additional rows as needed.
Budget N arrativeActivity
List key activities or strategies funded by
Title D-D. Add additional rows as needed.
(Including necessary staff development)
Staff Development (Fall .25): Help administrators and teachers use data (Student information system and Mastery in
Motion) to inform instruction as well as to develop materials for short cycle assessment. This will assure that schools
will continue to meet AYF. Also, will provide assistance in the use of technology for the purpose of instruction. This
position will also facilitate the district technology plan and it's portion of the state technology grant.
Title D-D Budgeted Amount
By Function Code
($$ By Function Code)
2240-111 10,639
2240-2xx 5,549
2240-340 1,000
2240-4xx 500
T
I
T
L
E
IT
D
.......
..j:::>.
o
Title II-D - Enhanoing Education Through Teohnology
2005-2006 SPENDING
District Name & Number: Date of Report:
Grant Allocation: $13,522 Transfer In: $4,166 TransferOut: $0
Grant Amount
after Transfers: $17,688
.........
+>-
.........
'lij
ca- U5 IIIt: .>1 1ii~~~o .2.c:2:bll!!c~~ ~ OJ>.1ii~6ol~~ .. > II Total By ObjectC ";::2 Ii ;; '" :> 0-
U) E ffi a; E .9
c Q. - 0 E <Jl
- .!l § 8 .~~ ~.- ~~::l ~~
II:
$0.00 $10,639.00 $0.00 $10,639.00
$0.00 $5,549.00 $0.00 $5,549.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $500.00 $0.00 $500.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$
$0.00
1)
C
S<Jl~
:J ~ E~~~~ ~ i;
o x 0:g~'ffi
5 ~Ui
en en .s
.E E al~ l!12~ '" '"~ ~
t:
~
t:
~
Obiect
660 Technology Capital Outlay
4XX Supplies and Materials (Textbooks, Library Books
and Periodicals)
2XX Benefits
340 Travel
460 Non-consumable Items
470 Com pute r Software
310 Instructional, Professional and Technical
Services
480 Com pute r Hardware
1XX Salaries
690 Grant Ind Irect Charges @ 0.00%
390 Other General Professional and Technical
Services
142
Technology Replacement and Upgrade Proposal
Based on the numbers reported on the Oregon Fall Report, Crook County has a total
of 730 networked computers available to staff and students. The enrollment as of
March 2006 is 3145 students in grade k through 12. In addition, the district provides
one computer in every classroom and, beyond that, a ration of one (l) computer for
every five (5) students.
The following represents the recommendation of the technology
committee.
Replacement: (Costs per year depend on cycle chosen)
Computer Replacement:
Using 700 computers as the basis for determining replacement cost and placing the
district on a 5-year cycle, Crook County School District would replace 120 computers
(20%) per year at the cost of approximately $700.00 per computer.
Replacement Priorities: In December 2005, the district technology committee
recommended the following priorities for use of the replacement fund. The
committee endeavored to look to
1. Upgrade high school and middle school labs on a two-year rotation--60 computers
with Windows 2000 (or greater) and Office 2000 (or greater). (Computers will be
recycled to elementary schools. Recycled computers will be distributed on an equal
basis with no more than 50% being dedicated to teacher use, therefore assuring a
minimum of 50% being dedicated to student use.
2. Develop elementary labs/classrooms to maintain a 5 to 1 ratio (approximately 75+
student computers per building).
3. Replace teacher computers at the rate of20% per year using building funding,
technology funding, and federal funding when available.
4. Assess the specific needs of personnel to determine the placement of replacement
computers, as reflected in individual building technology plans.
As funds become available:
1. Purchase projectors, scanners, cameras, and laser printers as per building
technology plan.
2. Purchase wireless access points to provide access throughout the building as per
building technology plan.
3. Maintain two networked computers per classroom at the elementary schools.
143
Network Upgrade / Replacement: ($445,000 pending receipt of funds)
Networking Equipment must be upgraded on a five-year cycle. Currently
routers and switches are being replaced for a total cost of $120,000.
We are considering a change to wireless access / fiber. The approximate
costs of this conversion would be $ 250,000.
Switches and routers currently being purchased are Voice over LP.
compatible. There will be an additional cost of $ 75,000 for purchasing
Voice over LP. telephones.
144
Curriculum: Scope and Sequence
Crook County School District will offer a comprehensive technology curriculum based
on the current Oregon Educational Technology Consortium (OETC) Standards.
National Standards
1. Basic operations and concepts
~ Students demonstrate a sound understanding of the nature and operation of
technology systems.
~ Students are proficient in the use of technology.
2. Social, ethical and human issues
~ Students understand the ethical, cultural, and societal issues related to
technology.
~ Students practice responsible use of technology systems, information, and
software.
~ Students develop positive attitudes toward technology uses that support
lifelong learning, collaboration, personal pursuits, and productivity.
3. Technology productivity tools
~ Students use technology to enhance learning, increase productivity, and
promote creativity.
~ Students use productivity tolls to collaborate in constructing technology-
enhanced models, prepare publications, and produce other creative works.
4. Technology communication tools
~ Students use telecommunications to collaborate, publish, and interact with
peers, experts, and other audiences.
~ Students use a variety of media and formats to communicate information and
ideas effectively to multiple audiences.
5. Technology research tools
~ Students use technology to locate, evaluate, and collect information from a
variety of sources.
~ Students use technology tools to process data and report results.
~ Students evaluate and select new information resources and technological
innovations based on the appropriateness for specific tasks.
· ..__ .'_. - _._-----------_._-_._-----
145
Curriculum: Scope and Sequence
National Standards
6. Technology problem-solving and decision-making tools
~ Students use technology resources for solving problems and making informed
decisions.
~ Students employ technology in the development of strategies for solving
problems in the real world.
146
Oregon Technology Common Curriculum Goals
(Adopted by the State Board March 21, 2002)
Technology is one of many tools that students have at their disposal as they
engage in the learning process. Educational technology is the application of technology
to the teaching and learning process. A technologically literate student accesses and
acquires knowledge, exchanges ideas and opinions, solves problems, and creates,
innovates and expresses themselves through the skillful use of a variety of technologies.
As with any other tool, students should use technology when its use will increase
understanding and enhance learning.
As technology filters out to every aspect of our society, it is essential that students
no develop technological skills in isolation. Rather, technology should be integrated into
every content area. By providing access to information, opening pathways to
communication, and facilitating personal understanding, technology supports learning all
subjects.
Students will:
1. Demonstrate proficiency in the use of technological tools and devices.
2. Select and use technology to enhance learning and problem solving.
3. Access, organize, and analyze information to make informed decisions, using
one or more technologies.
4. Use technology in an ethical and legal manner and understand how
technology affects society.
5. Design, prepare, and present unique works using technology to communicate
information and idea.
6. Extend communication and collaboration with peers, experts, and other
audiences using telecommunications.
Student Outcome Statement for Technology
Students will demonstrate the ability to use appropriate technology tools to find,
process and communicate information and to create high quality products across the
curriculum.
Standard #1: Use Technology to create age appropriate curriculum based products.
Standard #2: Use technology to gather, organize, analyze, and evaluate data.
Standard #3: Students will use existing and emerging technologies responsibly and
appropriately.
147
Curriculum Philosophy:
The district believes that formal technology training at grade kindergarten through second
grade is not necessary. Students, at those levels, should focus on the skills of reading and
mathematics.
The district will begin a formal technology curriculum at about grade 3. The curriculum
will include: hardware and software identification, keyboarding, and the basic use of
presentation software.
Following is Crook County School District Policy on the use of technology.
148
IIBG
IIBGA
IIBGA-AR (1)
IIBGA-AR (2)
IIBGA-AR (3)
Instructional Technology
Acceptable Use
Acceptable Use
User Responsibilities
Internet Filtering
Adopted 4/18/94
Adopted 8/14/94
Adopted 8/14/95
Adopted 8/14/95
Adopted 3/13/00
149
Code:
IIBG
Adopted:
4/18/94
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY
The Board recognizes its responsibility to ensure that district staff and students have
access to up-to-date technological materials and equipment. As used in this policy,
'"technology" refers principally to electronic materials and equipment, including
computers, telecommunications, lasers, and robotics.
The following reflect the district's goals for students regarding instructional technology:
1. To foster an atmosphere of enthusiasm and curiosity regarding new technology
and its applications;
2. To heighten each student's familiarity and/or working knowledge of current
technological materials/equipment;
3. To provide all students equal access to district technological materials/equipment
and to instruction to in their implementation;
4. To ensure that the various technologies are utilized in a variety of applications,
and are not restricted to one subject area or one location in the schools;
5. To promote district educational goals by such technology (ies).
In order to achieve the above-stated goals, the Board shall seek the advice of
representatives from groups utilizing technology in pursuit of district goals (i.e., Board
members, administrators, teachers, support staff, parents and students). In addition, the
Board directs the superintendent to equip district schools with appropriate and up-to-date
hardware/software, to schedule "hands-on" in-service activities for district staff and to
implement suggestions from the above representatives and the instructional materials
planning committee, within budgetary constraints.
END OF POLICY
Legal References:
OAR 581-022-1030
(West 1982)
Copyrights, Title 17, United States Code
150
CODE:
IIBGA
ADOPTED: 8/14/94
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM - ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
The Board is committed to the development and establishment ofa quality, equitable, and
cost effective electronic communications system. The system's purpose shall be for the
advancement and promotion of learning, teaching, and communications through the
district.
The district's system will be used to provide district-wide, statewide, national and global
communications opportunities for staff and students.
The district's electronic communications system shall be referred to as "crookEDnet".
The Network Administrator will establish administrative regulations for the use of the
district's system. The administrative regulations will be consistent with sound guidelines
as may be provided by the education service district and/or the Oregon Department of
Education.
Failure to abide by district policy and administrative regulations governing use of the
district's system may result in the suspension and/or revocation of system access.
Additionally, student violations may result in discipline up to and including expulsion.
Staffviolations may also result in discipline up to and including dismissal. Fees, fines, or
other charges may also be imposed.
END OF POLICY
151
Legal References:
ORS 30.765
ORS 163.435
ORS 164.345
ORS 164.365
ORS 167.060
ORS 167.065
ORS 167.070
ORS 167.080
ORS 167.087
ORS 167.090
ORS 167.095
ORS Chapter 192
ORS 332.107
ORS 336.222
ORS 339.250
ORS 339.260
ORS 339.270
OAR 581-21-050 OAR 581-21-055
Copyrights, Title 17, as amended, United States Code
"Attorney General's Public Records and Meetings Manual" (1993)
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986, P.L. 99-570.
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, P.L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 418 et. seq.
Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, P.L. 100-690, Title V, Subtitle D, Sections
5151-5160, 102 Stat. 4305-4308.
Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 812, Section 202, Schedules I through V,
21 C.F.R. 1300.11 through 1300.15
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Amendments of 1989, P.L. 101-226,
103 Stat. 1928 et. seq.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et. seq. (1988)
29 CFR Part 1630
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Sec. 438,20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g
152
CODE: IIBGA-AR (1)
ADOPTED: 8/14/95
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM - ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
I. General District Responsibilities
A. The network administrator will serve as coordinator to oversee the
district's electronic communications system and work with the local
education service district and the Oregon Department of Education
network staff as necessary.
B. The district will cooperate fully with local, state, or federal officials in any
investigation concerning or relating to misuse of the district's electronic
communications system.
C. The district may provide for students and staff that have their own
computer hardware at home access to the district's system.
II. General Building Principal Responsibilities
A. The network administrator will not intentionally inspect the contents of
electronic mail sent by a system user to an identified addressee or disclose
such contents to other than the sender unless required to do so by law.
Policies of the district are to investigate complaints regarding electric
mail, which is alleged to contain defamatory, inaccurate, abusive obscene,
profane, sexually oriented, threatening, offensive, or illegal material.
B. The building principal will be designated the responsibility for
disseminating and interpreting district policy and administrative
regulations governing use of the district's system at the building level with
all system users.
C. The building principal will provide employee training for proper use of the
system and will ensure staff supervising students using the district's
system provide similar training to their students, including copies of
district policy and administrative regulations governing use of the district's
system.
D. The network administrator may monitor or examine all system activities as
deemed appropriate to ensure proper use of the system.
153
E. The network administrator may establish a retention schedule for
electronic messages and remove messages posted locally that are deemed
inappropriate.
F. The network administrator may set quotas for disk usage on the system. A
system user who remains in noncompliance of disk space quotas after
seven (7) calendar days of notification may have their files removed by the
network administrator. System users may request their quota be increased
by submitting a written request to the network administrator stating the
need for the quota increase.
G. The network administrator will ensure all users of the district's system
complete and sign an agreement to abide by district policy and
administrative regulations. All such agreements will be maintained on file
in the network support office.
III. System Access
A. The following individuals are authorized to use the district's system:
1. All district employees.
2. Students in grades 6-12 who have obtained a sponsoring teacher
may be granted, with parental permission, an individual account
for up to one academic year at a time.
Students in grades five and below are not allowed individual
accounts. Teachers of these grades may apply for yearly
classroom accounts at Level 2. Classroom Internet access or
district-wide student E-Mail may also be requested in addition to
standard Level 2 accounts. Students using the classroom account
must have a completed parental permission form on file with the
site's administration. The teacher is ultimately responsible for use
of the account and is obligated to directly supervise these students
according to the Acceptable Use Policy. Teachers requesting
classroom accounts are required to maintain the account password
confidentiality by not giving their password to students.
Level 1 Account: Shall have access to stand-alone computers
NOT connected to the district or building networks. Have no
access outside the system's location.
Level 2 Account: Shall have Level 1 access plus access to local
and district-wide services. This is the default classroom account
for Grades K-5.
154
Level 3 Account: Shall have Level 2 access plus student
Electronic Mail (E-Mail) account.
Level 4 Account: Shall have Level 3access plus Internet access.
This is the default student account for Grades 6-12.
Level 5 Account: Shall have Level 4 access plus access to district
management system and administrative E-Mail services. This is
the default level for staff. NO student will be allowed a Level 5
account.
3. Students may not maintain accounts upon graduation unless they
otherwise qualify under one of the other acceptable use provisions.
4. Non-school persons who request guest accounts. Guest account
requests may be made to the network administrator. Requests may
be granted on a case-by-case basis consistent with the district's
mission and goals and as needs and resources permit.
155
CODE:
IIBGA-AR(2)
ADOPTED: 8/14/95
GENERAL SYSTEM USER RESPONSIBILITIES
1. On-Line Conduct
A. The individual in whose name a system account is issued is responsible at
all times for its proper use. The district's system shall be used only for
educational purposes consistent with the district's mission and goals.
Commercial and/or personal use of the district's system is strictly
prohibited.
B. System users shall not knowingly submit, publish, or display on the
district's system any inaccurate and/or objectionable material.
C. System users shall not promote any other activity prohibited by district
policy, state, or federal law.
D. Transmission of material information or software in violation of any
district policy, local, state, or federal law is prohibited.
E. System users identifying a security problem on the district's system must
notify the network administrator.
F. System users may not use another individual's system account without
written permission from the network administrator.
G. Attempts by a student to log on to the district's system as a district
employee will result in cancellation of user privileges, and may result in
disciplinary action up to and including expulsion.
H. Teachers may require students to restrict access to course program files.
1. Any system user identified as a security risk or having a history of
violations or district and/or building computer-use guidelines may be
denied access to the district's system
156
J. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) is the only
existing federal law specifically governing e-mail. Under the ECPA, there is
privacy protection against both interception ofelectronic communications
while in transmission and against unauthorized intrusion into e-mail stored on
the system. Interception of electronic communication is prohibited (Section
101-100 Stat 1850), and service providers of electronic communications
cannot intentionally divulge communication contents, with certain exceptions
(Section 102). These provisions protect the privacy of electronic
communications in general.
K. In order to reduce unnecessary system traffic, system users may use real-
time conference features such as talk/chat/Internet relay chat only as
approved by the student's teacher and network administrator.
L. System users will remove electronic mail in accordance with established
retention guidelines. Such messages may be removed by the network
administrator if not attended to by the system user.
M. System users will not evade, change, or exceed network resource quotas or
server disk usage quotas as set by the network administrator. A user who
remains in non-compliance of disk space quotas after seven (7) calendar
days of notification may have their file removed by the network
administrator. Such quotas may be exceeded only by requesting to the
network administrator that disk quotas be increased and stating the need
for the increase.
N. System users will do a virus check on downloaded files to avoid spreading
computer viruses. Deliberate attempts to degrade or disrupt system
performance will be viewed as a violation of district policy and
administrative regulations and may be viewed as criminal activity under
applicable state and federal laws.
o. Vandalism will result in cancellation of system use privileges. Fines will
be imposed for acts of vandalism. Vandalism is defined as any malicious
attempt to harm or destroy district equipment or materials, data of another
user of the district's system or any of the agencies or other networks that
are connected to Internet. This includes, but is not limited to, the
uploading or creating of computer viruses.
P. Any software having the purpose of damaging the district's system or
other user's system is prohibited.
157
Q. Copyrighted material may not be placed on any district system without the
author's permission. Only the owner(s) or individuals the owner
specifically authorizes may upload copyrighted material to the system
with the permission of the system administrator.
R. System users may redistribute non-commercially copyrighted programs
only with the express permission of the owner or authorized person. Such
permission must be specified in the document or must be obtained directly
from the author in accordance with applicable federal guidelines,
copyright laws, district policy, and administrative regulations.
S. System users may also download public domain programs for their own
use or non-commercially redistribute a public domain program. System
users are responsible for determining whether a program is in the public
domain.
II. Telephone/Membership/Other Charges
A. The district assumes no responsibility or liability for any membership or
phone charges including, but not limited to, long distance charges, per
minute (unit) surcharges and/or equipment or line costs incurred by any
home usage of the district's system.
B. Any disputes or problems regarding phone services for home users of the
district's system are strictly between the system user and hislher local
phone company and/or long distance service provider.
C. Commercial and/or personal for-profit use of the district's system is
prohibited.
III. Updating Member Account Information
A. The district may require new registration and account information from
system users to continue service.
B. System users must notify the district of any changes ofaccount
information such as address and phone number.
C. Student account information will be maintained in accordance with
applicable education records law and district policy and administrative
regulations.
158
IV. Infonnation Content/Third Party Supplied Infonnation
A. System users and parents of system users are advised that use of the
district's system may provide access to other electronic communications
systems that may contain inaccurate and/or objectionable material.
B. The district does not condone the use of objectionable materials. Such
materials are prohibited in the school environment.
C. Parents of students with accounts on the district's system should be aware
of the existence of such materials and monitor their student's home usage
of the district's system accordingly.
D. Students knowingly bringing prohibited materials into the school
environment will be subject to suspension and/or revocation of their
privileges on the district's system and will be subject to discipline in
accordance with the district's policy and applicable administrative
regulations.
E. Staff knowingly bringing prohibited materials into the school will be
subject to disciplinary action in accordance with district policy and
collective bargaining agreements for discipline and dismissal.
IV. Infonnation Content/Third Party Supplied Infonnation (Continued)
A. Opinions, advice, services, and all other infonnation expressed by system
users, infonnation providers, service providers, or other third party
individuals in the system are those of the providers and not the district.
B. All matters concerning merchandise and services ordered including, but
not limited to, purchase tenns, payment tenns, warranties, guarantees, and
delivery are solely between the seller and the system user. The district
makes no warranties or representation whatsoever with regard to any
goods or services provided by the seller.
C. District staff and administration shall not be a party to any such
transaction or be liable for any costs or damages arising out of, either
directly or indirectly, the actions or inactions of sellers.
V. TenninationlRevocation of System User Account
159
A. A guest system user's access to and use of the district's system may be
terminated by the system user notifying the network administrator as
appropriate.
B. Terminations by any system user will be effective on the day the network
administrator receives notice of a guest system user's termination or of a
student withdrawal or revocation of system privileges or on a future date if
so specified in the notice.
c. Guest system accounts inactive for more than 30 calendar days may be
removed along with the system user's files without notice given to the
system user.
D. The district may suspend or revoke a system user's access to the district's
system upon any violation ofdistrict policy and/or administrative
regulation.
E. Prior to a suspension or revocation of system service or as soon as
practicable the network administrator will inform the system user of the
suspected violation and give the system user an opportunity to present an
explanation.
1. A system user may appeal the suspension or revocation within
seven (7) calendar days.
2. The network administrator may conduct the hearing or designate
the building principal to conduct the hearing.
VI. Disclaimer
The district does not warrant that the functions or services performed by or
that the information or software contained on the system will meet the
system user's requirements or that the system will be uninterrupted or
error-free or that defects will be corrected. The district's system is
provided on an "as is, as available" basis. The district does not make any
warranties, whether express or implied including, without limitation, those
ofmerchantability and fitness for a particular purpose with respect to any
services provided by the system and any information or software
contained herein.
160
Student Agreement for an Electronic Communications System Account
Student agreement must be renewed each academic year.
1. STUDENT SECTION
Student Name Grade .
School .
I have read the district's Electronic Communications System policy and applicable
administrative regulation and do agree to abide by their provisions. I understand that
violation of these provisions may constitute suspension or revocation of system access
and related privileges. Certain violations can result in discipline, up to and including
expulsion (please read the policy carefully).
Student Signature Date .
*******
2. SPONSORING TEACHER
I agree to sponsor the above student and to supervise his/her responsible use of the
district's system as defined by the district's policy and administrative regulations while in
school.
Teacher's Signature Date .
161
3. SPONSORING PARENT OR GUARDIAN
I have read the district's Electronic Communications System policy and administrative
regulation. I will monitor my student's use in the system and his/her potential access to
the worldwide Internet and will accept responsibility for supervision in that regard when
my student's use is not in a school setting. In consideration for the privilege of using the
district's Electronic Communications System and in consideration for having access to
the public networks, I hereby release the district, its operators and any institutions with
which they are affiliated from any and all claims and damages of any nature arising from
my, or my student's use, or inability to use, the system including, without limitation, the
type of damages identified in the district's policy and administrative regulations.
I certify that the information contained on this form is correct and give my
permission to issue an account for my student at the following level (please initial
each level of access you would allow for your student this school year):
___Level 4 - Same as Level 3 plus adds Internet. This is the default student
account for Grades 6-12 if parental permission is granted. Level 2 is the highest
access level for Grades K-5.
___Level 3 - Same as Level 2 plus gives the student the right to communicate
to others on the "crookEDnet" E-Mail system.
___Level 2 - Same as Levell plus access to local and district-wide services.
This is the default classroom account for Grades K-5 if parental permission is
granted.
___Levell - This allows the student to use stand-alone computers.
+---+ I do not give my permission for my student to participate
+---+ In the district's communications system
Signature of parent or guardian .
Home Address .
Date Home Phone Number .
--------------.---------------- This space reserved for network administrator -------------------
Assigned Username: .
Assigned Password: .
162
Staff Agreement for an Electronic Communications System Account
I have read the district's Electronic Communications System policy and administrative
regulation. In consideration for the privilege of using the district's Electronic
Communications System and in consideration for having access to the public networks, I
hereby release the district, its operators and any institutions with which they are affiliated
from any and all claims and damages of any nature arising from my use or inability to use
the system including, without limitation, the type of damages identified in the district's
policy and administrative regulations.
Signature .
Home Address .
Date ~~~~~~_~_Home Phone Number ..
This space reserved for network administrator:
Assigned Username: .
Assigned Password: .
163
IIBGA-AR (3)
3/13/00
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM - INTERNET FILTERING
The Board is committed to insuring that the District's electronic communication system
is used in a manner consistent with its acceptable use policy (AUP). Consequently,
Internet filtering shall be utilized to provide students and staff protection against
accessing objectionable and inappropriate Internet material.
In order to achieve the above-stated commitment, the district contracts with the Crook
Deschutes ESD who in turn contracts with a filtering service to identify and examine the
thousands of new sites that come online everyday.
The filtering service features a Request Page Review that allows the district to request
that any particular site be blocked or unblocked with each request reviewed and
individually replied to. This feedback helps the filtering service refine its list, involves
the District in the filtering process, and helps the District customize its own block list.
The filtering service proxy servers provide a powerful, flexible tool available for
enforcing the District's Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). The Block Categories shown
below reflect the criteria in identifying objectionable Internet material for the proxy
server. The general categories of "blockable" Web sites are:
BLOCK CATEGORIES
• Adults Only: Material labeled by its author or publisher as being strictly for adults.
(Examples: "Adults only", "You must be 18 to visit this site", "Registration is
allowed only for people 18 or older", "You must be of legal drinking age to visit this
site").
• HatelDiscrimination: Advocating discrimination against others based on race,
religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
• Illegal: Advocating, promoting, or giving advice on carrying out acts widely
considered illegal. This includes lock-picking, bomb-making, fraud, breaching
computer security ("hacking"), phone service theft ("phreaking"), pirated software
archives, or evading law enforcement.
• Pornography: Material intended to be sexually arousing or erotic. (See also Sex and
Nudity)
• Sex: Images or descriptions of sexual activity. Any sexual merchandise. Sexual
fetishism. (See also Pornography and Nudity)
• Violence: Graphic images or written descriptions of wanton violence or grave injury
(mutilation, maiming, dismemberment, etc.) Includes graphically violent games.
164
• Alcohol: Advocating or promoting recreational use of alcohol. (See also "Adults
Only.")
• Chat: Chat sites, services that allow short messages to be sent to others immediately
in real time. Downloadable chat software.
• Drugs: Advocating or promoting recreational use of any controlled substance. (Also
see Illegal)
• Free Email: Sites that offer e-mail accounts over the Web for free. Such sites can
expose users to harmful content delivered via e-mail file attachments and blocking
such sites helps to enforce local acceptable use policies when e-mail is already
provided locally to users.
• Free Page Websites: Sites where horne page space is offered for free. These sites
historically have done nothing to prevent capricious abuse of their services by users
who post offensive content under multiple pseudonyms, making them difficult to
track. Individual pages that have been reviewed by N2N2 on such sites are removed
from this category, but filed under other categories as necessary.
• Gambling: Gambling services, or information relevant primarily to gambling.
• Tasteless/Gross: Bodily functions. Tasteless humor. Graphic medial photos. Some
extreme forms of body modification (cutting, branding, genital piercing).
• Profanity: Crude, vulgar, or obscene language or gestures.
• Lingerie: Models in lingerie.
• Nudity: Bare or visible genitalia, pubic hair, buttocks, female breasts, etc. (See also
Lingerie, Sex, Pornography)
• Personal Information: Sites that gather personal information (name, address, phone
number, etc.).
• School Cheating Info Pages: Any site that promotes plagiarism or similar cheating
among students (such as by offering term papers, exam keys, etc.)
• SuicidelMurder: Information on committing murder or suicide.
• Tobacco: Advocating or promoting recreational use of tobacco. (See also "Adults
Only.")
• Weapons: Information on use of weapons, weapon collecting, or weapon making.
• Personals: Personal advertisements, including "mail-order brides." (See also
"Adults Only.")
EXCEPTION CATEGORIES
• Education Material: Material under another category (such as Sex, Nudity,
Violence) that has educational value (such as classic literature, sex education, etc.)
• For Kids Sites: Sites that are designed specifically for kids.
SPECIAL CATEGORIES
• Block search engine results based on key words.
• Block User Request List's based on key words.
END OF POLICY
Legal Reference
165
District Technology Plan
Action Plan
Goal: A. The district will enhance technology and support by researching, developing, and maintaining
infrastructure and programs that support the needs of the staff, students, and community.
Indicator: A completed plan that leads to maintenance ofa goal ofnefworked computers at a ratio of5-1
for students in the district by September 2008.
Activity Person Responsible Completion Date Cost
Develop a strategy for
researching and
implementing V4el.
Dennis Kostelecky/ September ff o(Committee Time)
Technology Coordinator/
Strategy for Technology Committee
use
.......
0\
0\
Activity Person Responsible Completion Date Cost
Maintain 1-
networked computer
per five students.
Technology Department July 2008 $20,000
Maintain 750
computers (per
priorities stated
above) Technology Department July 2008 Technology staff time
Distribute computers
equitably to
elementary schools Technology Department August/September 2008 Technology staff time
Install technology in
buildings Technology September 2008 Committee Time
Committee/Administrative October 2008 Technology
Plan for acquiring Team March 2008 Department Time
Technology for 2006- Administrative Time
2008
Survey need
Research cost
Include in budgeting
process
.......
0',
-....l
Activity Person Responsible Completion Date Cost
Develop a method of
budgeting for
replacement. Technology Committee February 2008 Committee Time
Discuss needs with
superintendent
SuperintendentlBudget March 2008 Committee Time
Budget appropriately Committee ($75,000-$85,000 per
year
Acquire replacement Yearly-JulylAugust
computers and Technology Department Technology staff
distribute usable used time
computers
Maintain and
upgrade educational
and administrative
software Building Technology February 2006 Determined by
Committee needs
Buildings survey
needs Technology Department August 2006--yearly
Upgrade to Windows
$15,000 in first year
2000 (or greater)
Develop a purchasing Technology Committee June 2006 Time
policy for hardware
and software based on
specification
minimums.
-0\
00
Goal: B. To provide the best possible use of technology the district will acquire, upgrade, and replace
hardware and software to enhance administrative and instructional needs.
Indicator: To provide hardware to assure networked computers at a ratio of 5-1 for students in the district
by September 2008.
Activity Person Responsible Completion Date Cost
Research and Technology Coordinator June 15,2008 Time
acquire equipment
for utilization and
management of
fiber optic WAN
technology.
Upgrade and
replace hardware to
a minimum of P3. Technology Department July 2006--yearly $85,000 first year
Purchase Hardware
(see above)
Update all PC to Technology Coordinator June 15, 2008 $15,000
Windows 2000 (or
greater) and Office
2000 (or greater)
(See Goal B # 3)
.......
0-
\0
Activity Person Responsible Completion Date Cost
Maintain at least a 1 to Technology Coordinator September 1,2008 $75,000 Annually
5
Computer/student ratio
(see Goal A #7 above)
Develop a plan for the Technology Committee June 15,2008 Time
acquisition of laser (Distribution policy)
printers to replace
Inkjet printers district
wide.
Technology Committee June 15,2008 Time
Develop a policy for the (Distribution policy)
implementation and
purchasing of laser
printers throughout the
district
.......
-...l
o
Goal: C. To improve the utilization of technology in the classroom and to enhance student achievement, the
district will provide staff development.
Indicators: 1) To develop staff competency requirements in technology by January 2007.
2) Develop a mastery training plan in technology.
3) To provide staff development in needed competency areas at least three times per year
2007-09.
Activity Person Responsible Completion Date Cost
Develop hiring criteria that will Personnel Director January 30, 2007 Time
include competency in technology Technology Coordinator
skills. Curriculum Coordinator
Develop and distribute a survey Curriculum Coordinator October 1, 2006 Time
yearly to determine staff
development needs
Provide staff development in the use Technology Director August 30, 2008-Mastery in Time
of administrative hardware and Curriculum Coordinator Motion
software (Schoolmaster, Windows, Building Principals August 30, 2008-SchoolMaster
Mastery in Motion, Grade book, etc. October 12, 2008-Needed
Provide staff development in the use Technology Director August 30, 2008-Accelerated Grant
of educational hardware and Curriculum Coordinator Read $200
software (PLATO, Accelerated Building Principals August 29, 2008-PLATO
Reader, STAR, etc.) as needed
Develop a mastery training plan Staff Development Committee January 30, 2008 Time
Curriculum Coordinator Grant
........
.....:J
........
Goal: D. To enhance student achievement the district will provide curriculum and best practices for
instruction using technology.
Indicators: 1) Written framework of technology skills K-5.
2) Develop a three-phase plan for the use of United Streaming.
3) Implementation of phase-two of the United Streaming plan.
4) Plan for implementing phase 3 of the plan.
Activity Person Responsible Completion Date Cost
Adopt standards Curriculum Coordinator October 1, 2006 Time
and curriculum for Teacher Committee
grades 3-8
Develop a phase-two Curriculum Coordinator October 1, 2006 Time
plan for curriculum Technology Coordinator
delivery of United
Streaming. $3000-$6000
October 12, 2007
Provide training in
United Streaming $800
for 100% of staff in
phase two.
Develop a phase Curriculum Coordinator Ongoing through 2008 Time
three plan for using
standards in the use
of United Streamin~
,....
i:::J
Goal: E. To develop, enforce and monitor policy development for staff, students, and community.
Indicators: 1) Revised network use policy.
2) At least one sessions of staff development on the revision of network use policy for students
and staff.
Activity Person Responsible Completion Date Cost
Review and revise Technology Coordinator October 1, 2007 Time
an acceptable Technology Committee
network use policy
Complete an annual Technology Coordinator October 1, 2008 Time
review of district
Internet and email
policy
Inform staff and Technology Coordinator September 30, 2006 and Time
students of Building Principals yearly
copyright laws and
use policy
......
-.....l
I.J.)
174
APPENDIXB
FCC FORM 470
FCC Form 470 Approval by0l\.4e
306lJ-.0800
Schools and Libraries Universal service
Description of ServicesR.equested and Certification Form 470
Estimated AYERge' Burden Hours per Res,ponse: .. hoursl ........"'ilRlIj_lIOhO"·....~_~r.............--_""' lhOt__..."_ .....,,...u.~ ._.....
-----t,lo..-""'..n ......·~ --""""""""'-,....IPIHU IUd Ir1sbuctfOne I:MfOr& llo&lI1M1ng milt 8pp11e8t10n. (1'011 C8IIsll1O II1II& onllmlBtwww.eI..llnIVllraIIIfifVIC8.ocgp
Applicant's Form Identifier { reate)'OOf OWl!! code to idemify THIS Form 410) Farm 470 '"
2 Funding Year 3 Entity Number
July 1. through June:30,
4a S!reet Address. P.O. Box. or Rmrte Nmnber
Zip Code
b Telephone Number Ext e Fax Number
IndiNidui!ll &:hoal (indill'idiial pubrlC or I1OIl-'pUblic scbool)
Sclwoil Diistric:t (LEA; public or lI'lOn-pliblic [e.g. dioI:esan}looal district representing multiple schcoIs)
Library (Ift~ library sys1ern,~ oulletlbranm or Ikary consortium as delinecl under
LSTA)
Comcrtillm (intErnlediilte seNice agencies. slates" 5late nelWDflts. speciill~aof 'SChools
and/or- libraries)
111111111111111111111' 1II1I11
0470010 104
FCC FCfm 470-
~2004
FCC: Form 471
iCR>o!ll> ....., """" III
Block 1: Billed Ent"
Nili'm! of1a BilliedEntlly
Ii
b
APPENDIXC
FCC FORM 471
047061616
175
FCC Fmm 471- Novemher :wo4
APPENDIXD
FCC FORM 472
176
fCC Form 472 Do not write ill thillllpaClt. ApproY31 by OMB
3000-0856
Eslimatl!d time per:esponse: 1.5 ltours
Universal SeNice for Schools lind Libraries
_~adl~_OIIrMI","". Tonot~"'_11IlIMe& crtclli«tla.
BIL.L.ED ENTITY APPLICANT REIMBURSEMENT FORM
forreilnbiBsemenl ofdlsoount3 00 approwd ....ice5 a!INdy paid forb1 !hi!BilledEniily Applicanl
0..11-Setv"'" Provider Identification Number !SPIllI per fumI.Mustbe~d _fsillnld bVlIIe Billed E.tiiY.~;U and signed bV ihe relennt smi"""rovidor.
U!lIlll<lstalotCOOll. 1".II.C.St<:. 11101. """""""mean
or ........, .. •ooz, 5IIJlDj, or_or ...- .~~
rec NOIICEfORlMDl\f1DllAl.S IIEQ\llMD 5Ylll£11lll\lloC'l ACT AlIIl_P_RE!I\lC1IDII ACT
pan 54l1fftCO__A,jlenulllortzEi!lll!FCCIoCOll!l:l1!leln!ll1l\allOnlll tIll6lOlm. FlII...top!ll'I1<fl!>II~ InIillD1a!Ion'diGOBy1!leprnceosilgol!lll! 'flllI_"'l1!&llllnft~llOo:n;
_iMttloti_ 1_""requoo.1<alll'11llUIflIlWIIlJl!_lllr!J'lbll>ill5jlel:lIcn. YolI""IXJlSOr.~llI£<l1D«>1ain1llO~~.
l1lepulllC"'I""1I"fft>1'1l1fr.COlIOdlonllf ~1I;_aleI11"rangI!lmm 1102l1011niPfmpllll5e.lndIJ<Il!1g tIlo 1II!le!cr~ 1I>OllllOlIcm....11l!IIllg~ daI3 _gatIlolIng ;WIIl"'.aillaiIlng
lIIl!leqIJfllIlua.~Il!iIl!699Il11!_D!_. ryoolliM!""I'Cill!Imenl6oothi&__.cr'-....<Im~1!Ie~iIrnlRllM>!lIle_r ....... )'Illl.~
_lol1Of_ MID-l'ERIA. PapeI'Mlll_1dP!lljer.l{3lllil-11856~ 1I1.>&!l!l'¢In.OC2ll5"..4. W.lllIl"""iCt<!J'Il"'Il'l:IllTV1le!Its~lI1oi>~ RedIldlJn"""
a6jleclslflJll;_""""ll:eI_r)'llU_1Il£m1ll~.IjlI'l. ~D(}NOTseNDYOOllfiESI'ClNSET01HlSfORMTOTffiSAOOfiESS.
R......oer-Vll\l...IlOI'"'l_1DlKpOIll1loa_Df_$jlOll&lll'BI1ly1lleF_~;WIIl!lll!govemlI!l!lllmayool_crijlOl\OOrWSOOliOdlon,llllle<Srt~."'.....,1'tiIl
OMIlOOflllDlllU""'orrw'l3IllDjX1Ij1Ile""J'I1lIl1!llsnttlle. lbJs_Ila6Da!!Th3Ji<lgn!ll"OIAlll:llllRl!."mll'''lfJll6lHl!l'~.
lHE fOKfGOlNG NOllCEIl AEllUIftElI5YTHE PlllVACT ACT Of Ul4, PIIBUC LAI'I~lIECEIIlIflI31. me. 5 U.s.C. 552B{oXSjANDTHE PAPfIlWllftKREDUC110N ACT Of lilSli,PIl8lIC
iAWIM-I:LClC1UIIEIIl 1m "U,I.C.SECIKlll35ll1.
BLOCK 1: HEADER INfORMATION
t 411 Billed Entity Name
2. 411 Billed Entity Number
3, Sl!IYlc:e Providar Id!!'ntification Number(SPlNj
4. Contact Name
5. Cmrtact Telephone Number
6. Reimbursernl!flt fDll1l Number
7. Reimbursernl!flt Date I<> USAC
a. Tot3l Reimbursement Amount (lolal or BIooiI. 2, llem 15 - 14.2 digits maximUlll)
FCCForm472 April2lJ07
177
APPENDIXE
FCC FORM 474
fCC FCITll 474 Do notwmem 11115 space.
Schools and I..iIJr.lries Unilll!rsal SeMce
Senrice Pnwide.~F""" 414
This fonn·....be filed ""Ii"" orbY....it
Ajlpovaloy006
306O-M5!l
Esumalel tiIne perf~: 1.5 hours
3. C<lntact PeI5OR'SName
I F"""474jnvQioe#---,--~--,---,---,- _{Tobe insedl!dby administmor)
CooIact fax Number
Cooiact Email Address
6. lnvOi<:<>Date 10 USIlC
7. TotaIlmro"", Amount
fCC foon414 April 2007
178
APPENDIXF
FCC FORM 486
FCC Form 486 Approval by OMS
3060-0853
Estimated time
per response: 1.15 hoors
Applicant's Form Identifier
ICfaate ..,our awn eode to identifY THIS Form 486}
To b& comp!eted by the B?1I.ed Entily
Please read inslmOOoos belore
Schools and Ubr.tries Universal Sentice
Receipt of Service Conrumation Form
{You can also file online at _.usac.orgIsL'
I~~~~::~-,-·--'-istr---:-a-'----1ar):------
Block 1: Billed Entitv Information
1. Name of Billed Entity
2. BiRed Entity Number I 3. Funding Year July 1
4. Complete Mailing Address of Billed Entity
SlreetAddres'S. P.O. BoX;, or RDUIe Number
Stale
through .June 30
Zip Code
Te4ephone Number
5. Contact P!!if'Son Infonnation
Contact PeTSOll Name
Extension IF_ Number
SlreetAddre=. P.O. Box or Route Number
Sla1e Zip Code
!;;beck the box next to the pn!ferTed mode ofcontact• .rAt least one box MUST be ooeclred.)
UTeleptione Number Extension D Fax Number
D EmailAddress
111I1111111 ill 1111 "1111111111
o 4 86 0 1 0 1 0 3
FCC Form 486 April 2007
179
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amendola, M., & Gaffard, J. L. (1988). The innovative choice: An economic analysis of
the dynamics oftechnology. Oxford, Oxfordshire; New York, NY: B. Blackwell.
Arfstrom, K., & Sechler, A. (2007). E-Rate: 10 years ofconnecting kids and community.
Washington, DC: The Education and Libraries Network Coalition.
Aufderheide, P. (1999). Communications policy and the public interest: The
telecommunications act of1996. New York: Guilford Press.
Barker, J. (2006, August). What is the Internet, the World Wide Web, and Netscape?
Retrieved December 28,2006, from the University of California, Berkeley, Web
site: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/WhatIs.html
Berman, P. (1974). Federal programs supporting educational change, V.2. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand.
Bessant, J. R., & Dodgson, M. (1996). Effective innovation policy: A new approach. New
York: Routledge.
Bunn, S., & Campbell, D. (2002). Oregon Senate Bill 622 and the implementation ofthe
Oregon Access Network. Salem: Oregon Department of Education.
Burrus, D., & Gittines, R. (1993). Technotrends: How to use technology to go beyond
your competition. New York: Harper Business.
BytePile.com, Inc., (2002, October 19). Data Transmission Speeds. Retrieved May 5,
2007, from BytePile.com Web site: http://www.bytepile.com/data_speed.php
Carvin, A. (2000). The E-Rate in America: A tale of4 Cities. Washington, DC: Benton
Foundation.
Cattagni, A., & Farris, E. (2001). Internet access in Us. public schools and classrooms:
1994-2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Cetron, M. J., Soriano, B., Gayle, M., & American Association of School Administrators.
(1985). Schools ofthe future: How American business and education can
cooperate to save our schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
180
Cisco Systems, Inc. (1996, February 6). TCP/IP. Retrieved April20, 2007, from
About.com Web site: http://websearch.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=l/
XJ&sdn=websearch&cdn=compute&tm=563&gps=90_741_1276_624&f=00&su
=p284.7.420.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.cisco.com/warp/public/
535/4.html
Coley, R., Cradler, J., & Engle, P. K. (1997). Computers and Classrooms (PIC-
COMPCLSS). Retrieved January 5, 2007, from http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/
menuitem.c988baOe5dd572bada20bc47c3921509/?vgnextoid=4500af5e44df4010
VgnVCMI0000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=5c75be3a864f4010VgnVCMl
0000022f95190RCRD
Compaine, B. M. (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth?
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dempsey, D. F. (1999). The benefits of creating your own school Internet Service
Provider. NASSP Bulletin, 83(607), 16-20.
Dodgson, M., & Bessant, J. (1996). Effective innovation policy. London: International
Thomson Business Press.
Educational Testing Service. (1996). Computers and the Classroom. Princeton:
Educational Testing Service.
Feizabadi, S. (1996). History ofthe World Wide Web. Retrieved December 20, 2006,
from Virginia Tech University Web site: http://eLcs.vt.edu/book/chapl/index.html
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world isjlat: A briefhistory ofthe twenty-first century. New
York: Picadour.
Fullan, M. (1992, October). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi
Delta Kappa, 744-52.
Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (1999). Applying educational research: A
practical guide (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
Gates, B., Myhrvold, N., & Rinearson, P. (1995). The road ahead. New York: Viking.
Goolsbee, A., & Guryan, J. (2006). Impact of Internet subsidies in public schools. The
Review ofEconomic and Statistics, 336-347.
Griffin, S. (2000). Internet pioneers. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from Ibiblio Web site:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/andreesen.html
181
Grubler, A. (1997) Time for a change: On the patterns ofdiffusion ofinnovation.
Retrieved April 17, 2008, from National Academies Press Web site:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4767&page=15
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2002). Handbook ofinterview research: Context &
method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
potholes. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Harris, L., & Associates. (2003). E-Rate: A vision ofopportunity and innovation.
Washington, DC: The Education and Libraries Network Coalition.
Hauben, M. (1996). History ofARPANET. Retrieved January 5, 2007, from Columbia
University Web site: http://www2.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa.html
Hord, S. M. (1987). Evaluating educational innovation. New York: Croom Helm.
Hord, S. M. (1987). Taking charge ofchange. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
H. R Com. Rep. NO. 458, 104th Congress; 2nd Session 132 (1996).
Hutchinson, D., Mariani, J. A., & Shepherd, D. (1985). The Ethernet. In D. Hutchinson
(Ed.), Local Area Networks (pp. 1-3). New York: Springer.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2000-2005). National educational
technology standards. Retrieved May 5,2007, from Louisiana Tech University
Web site: http://cnets.iste.org/index.shtml
Katz, Elihu (1999). Theorizing diffusion: Tarde and Sorokin revisited. The Annals 566:
144-155 C (N).
Kosiur, D. R, & Angel, J. (1995). How local area networks work: What they are and
what they do. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR
Leiner, B., Cerf, V. G., Clark, D. D., Kahn, R, Kleinrock, L., Lynch, D. C., et al. (2006,
November). A brief history of the Internet. InA briefhistory ofthe Internet (1).
Retrieved December 30,2006, from The Internet Society Web site:
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml#Introduction
Marshall, C, & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.)
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
182
McCauley, M. P., Artz, B. L., Peterson, E. E., & Halleck, D. D. (Eds.). (2003). Public
Broadcasting and the Public Interest. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Messere, F. J. (1996). Us. Policy: Telecommunications Act of1996. Retrieved December
28,2006, from Museum of Broadcast Communications Web site:
http://museum.tv/archives/etv/U/htmIU/uspolicyt/uspolicyt.htm
National Center for Education Statistics (2000, September). Teachers' tools for the 21st
Century: A report on teachers' use oftechnology (NCES 2000-102). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Cambridge,
MA: USA Research.
Nuechterlein, J. E., & Weiser, P. J. (2005). Digital crossroads: American
telecommunications policy in the internet age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Oregon Public Education Network. (2006). About OPEN. Retrieved October 15, 2004,
from Oregon Public Education Network Web site: http://www.open.k12.or.us/
about.html
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed., Rev.).
(2006). Personal Computer. Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia.
Peslak, A. (2004). An empirical study of the effect of information technology
expenditures on student achievement. Information Research, 9(4), paper 185.
Available at http://lnformationR.net/ir/9-4/paper185.html
Puma, M. J. (2000). E-Rate and the digital divide. Washington DC: Department of
Education.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion ofinnovations (5th ed., Rev.). New York: Free Press.
Rowand, C. (1999). Internet access in public schools and classrooms: 1994-98.
Retrieved November 7,2007, from Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999017
Rutherford, W. L., & Murphy, S. C. (1985). Change in high schools: Roles and reactions
ofteachers. Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, the
University of Texas at Austin.
Schofield, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (2002). Bringing the Internet to school: Lessonsfrom
an urban district. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
183
Servon, L. J. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: Technology, community, andpublic
policy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Tanenbaum, A. S. (2002). Computer networks (4th ed., Rev.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall PTR.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires ofschools: A SCANS reportfor
America 2000. Washington, DC: Secretary's Commission on Achieving
Necessary Skills.
Universal Service Administration Corporation. (2006). Universal Service fundfacts.
Retrieved December 28, 2006, from Universal Service Administrative Company
Web site: http://www.universalservice.org/about/universal-service/fund-
facts/fund_facts.aspx
Wall, A. (2007). History ofsearch engines. Retrieved August 15,2008, from Search
Engine History Web site: http://www.searchenginehistory.com
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Yost, J. R. (2005). The computer industry. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.