"Request for Proposals"
Request for Proposals Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grants 2004-2005 Arkansas Department of Education Technology Resources & Planning April 8, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROGRAM GOALS .................................................................................................................... 1 District Performance Goals ..................................................................................................... 1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................ 2 Eligible Applicants ................................................................................................................... 2 Focus of Competitive Awards .................................................................................................. 3 Allocation of Funds and Eligible Expenses .............................................................................. 3 Length of Funding ................................................................................................................... 4 Funding and Instructional Priorities ......................................................................................... 4 Applicant Responsibilities and Commitments .......................................................................... 4 Procedure for Applying for EETT Funds ..................................................................................... 5 Letter of Intent ......................................................................................................................... 5 Application Deadline ............................................................................................................... 5 Application Components ......................................................................................................... 5 Review Process ...................................................................................................................... 6 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 6 Guidelines for Completing Application Components ................................................................... 6 Cover Sheet & Assurances (Forms 2 & 3) ............................................................................... 6 Abstract & Contextual Background (Form 4) ........................................................................... 7 Accountability Measures (Form 5) ........................................................................................... 7 Strategies (Form 6) ................................................................................................................. 8 Budget Summary & Budget Detail Narrative (Form 7) ............................................................ 9 Budget Detail Narrative ........................................................................................................... 9 Convergence of Resources & Involvement of Non-Public Schools (Form 8) ......................... 10 FORM 1 - Notice of Intent to Submit Proposal ...................................................................... 11 FORM 2 – Application Cover Sheet ...................................................................................... 12 FORM 3 – Assurances .......................................................................................................... 13 FORM 4 – Project Executive Summary ................................................................................. 14 FORM 5 – Accountability Measures/Evaluation Chart ........................................................... 15 FORM 6 – Strategies Chart ................................................................................................... 18 FORM 7 – Budget Summary ................................................................................................. 19 FORM 8 – Convergence of Resources and Involvement of Non-public Schools ................... 21 FORM 9 – District Technology Plan ...................................................................................... 22 FORM 10 – State Review Committee: Criteria for EETT Competitive Grant Application ....... 23 APPENDIX A - U.S. Census Poverty Data by District .............................................................. 29 APPENDIX B - Student to Computer Ratio by District...................... ………………………...35 APPENDIX C - Evaluation Chart Sample ................................................................................. 42 INTRODUCTION The Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) Program was established as a part of the federal No Child Left Behind, Public Law, 107-110, Title II, Part D, section 2401. Under this program, the Arkansas Department of Education will award federally-funded grants to eligible local entities and consortiums. Governed by the guidelines from the federal No Child Left Behind, the purpose of this competitive grant is to improve student academic achievement through the effective integration of technology. It is also designed to assist every student, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, geographical location, or disability, in becoming technologically literate. EETT grant proposals should emphasize the effective integration of technology resources with professional development to promote research-based instructional methods that can be widely replicated. PROGRAM GOALS The major purpose of the Enhancing Education Through Technology program is to assist school systems in improving student academic achievement. Grant funding will serve to enhance ongoing efforts to improve teaching and learning through the use of technology. In particular, attention should be given to: improving student achievement through the use of technology; assisting every student to become technologically literate by the end of the eighth grade; and encouraging the effective integration of technology. District Performance Goals To receive EETT competitive funds, LEAs must develop a process and accountability measures that will be used to evaluate the extent to which activities funded under the program are effective in: integrating technology into curricula and instruction; increasing the ability of teachers to teach; and enabling students to meet challenging State standards, including technology literacy. District Technology Plan Ark Code 6-5-401 states that each school shall develop a long-range school improvement plan focused on student achievement. Local school districts must also have a comprehensive, long- range, district wide technology plan for implementing educational technology initiatives that support the school improvement plan. The district technology plan should be closely aligned with the school improvement plan. The local school district technology plan must be approved in order to receive state or federal technology funds. Your technology plan will be reviewed to ensure that whatever you are proposing for EETT grant funds is reflected in your plan. If necessary, you may amend your technology plan. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 1 OVERVIEW Eligible Applicants An eligible local entity is either a “high-need local educational agency” or an “eligible local partnership.” Only eligible local entities may receive competitive EETT funds. High-need local educational agency is an LEA that is among those LEAs in the State with the highest numbers or percentages of children from families with incomes below the poverty line (See Appendix A) AND serves one or more schools identified for improvement or corrective action under section 1116 of the ESEA, OR has a substantial need for assistance in acquiring and using technology. ‘Substantial need’ is defined as the school districts that have a greater than 5.0 student to multimedia computer ratio. (See Appendix B) For the purposes of this program, the term “poverty line” means the poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act) applicable to a family of the size involved (ESEA Section 9101 (33). In Arkansas, the median percentage of children from families with incomes below poverty line is 20.7%. The definition for “highest numbers or percentages of children from families with incomes below the poverty line in Arkansas is: The LEA has 20.7%, or more, of children from families with incomes below the poverty line living within the LEA (See Appendix A) What is an “eligible local partnership”? An “eligible local partnership” is a partnership that includes at least one high-need LEA and at least one of the following: An LEA that can demonstrate that teachers in its schools are effectively integrating technology and proven teaching practices into instruction, based on a review of relevant research, and that the integration results in improvement in classroom instruction and in helping students meet challenging academic standards An institution of higher education in full compliance with the reporting requirements of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and that has not been identified by the State as low-performing under that act. A for-profit business or organization that develops, designs, manufactures, or produces technology products or services or has substantial expertise in the application of technology in instruction. A public or private nonprofit organization with demonstrated expertise in the application of educational technology in instruction. The partnership may also include other LEAs, educational service agencies, libraries, or other educational entities appropriate to provide local programs. The majority of the eligible local partnership’s services must focus on the needs of the “high-need” LEA. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 2 Focus of Competitive Awards For the grant cycle, July 1, 2004-September 30, 2005, there are two categories of competitive awards: I. State Professional Development Initiative - Proposals must address on a statewide basis the technology professional development and technical assistance needs of LEA’s that qualify for competitive grants in this Request for Proposals. The proposals may also offer similar services for LEA’s that received Ed Tech formula grants of insufficient size to be effective. The proposals may originate from either a consortium of Educational Service Cooperatives or local school districts but the scope of the proposal(s) must be broad enough to provide direct services to qualified districts throughout the state. II. Local Education Agency Proposals Proposals should be based on a local school/district technology plan and on strategies developed as part of the school’s Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (ACSIP). All proposals should address the five strategies listed on Form 6 of this application. Allocation of Funds and Eligible Expenses The EETT Competitive Grants are made available through the U.S. Department of Education’s Enhancing Education through Technology program and are distributed on a competitive basis to public local education agencies (LEAs). Approximately $2.5 million is available to LEAs in Arkansas for EETT Competitive Grants during this funding cycle. To submit a competitive proposal, an applicant must meet the definition of high-need LEA or eligible local partnership. If a partnership is established, the goals of the proposal must meet the needs of the high-need LEA. To meet the statutory requirements of No Child Left Behind legislation, the Arkansas Department of Education will use a monitoring and program review instrument to determine compliance with the law and regulations in the funded projects. This process will also evaluate the extent to which activities funded under the EETT are effective in (1) integrating technology into curricula and instruction; (2) increasing the ability of teachers to teach; and (3) enabling students to meet challenging State standards. Each EETT recipient must use at least twenty-five percent (25%) of its funds to provide ongoing, sustained, intensive, and high-quality professional development. Professional development must be research-based. The remaining funds may be used to carry out other activities consistent with the purposes of the program and the district’s technology plan and school improvement plan. A recipient of EETT funds may support activities such as: Integrating technology into curriculum and instruction Using technology to create new learning environments o Accessing data and resources to develop curricula and instructional materials o Enhancing communications o Retrieving internet-based resources o Improving classroom instruction and assessment in core academic areas Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 3 Length of Funding All competitive awards will be one-year awards. Funding begins at the time of official grant award notification. Unless an LEA receives prior approval from the Arkansas Department of Education, all funds should be expended by September 30, 2005. Funding and Instructional Priorities In determining a funding and instructional focus, each eligible LEA should develop a proposal of appropriate size and scope to best facilitate the grant’s goals: to (a) improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in schools; (b) assist all students in becoming technologically literate by the end of the eighth grade; and (c) encourage the effective integration of technology in teacher training and curriculum development to establish successful research-based instructional methods. Additionally, the focus of a grant proposal should be consistent with the specified priorities of the particular category of award and meet all minimum requirements. Also, Enhancing Education Through Technology legislation mandates specific criteria to be used in considering funding: Focus of the grant must be on addressing the needs of the high-need LEA Priority to LEAs that are eligible for competitive, and received insufficient amounts under the formula award Program must be of sufficient size, duration, scope, and quality Equitable rural/urban distribution ‘High-need’ LEA must serve as the fiscal agent At least twenty-five percent (25%) of the funds must be allocated to provide ongoing, sustained, and intensive, high-quality professional development that is based on relevant research. Applicant Responsibilities and Commitments Superintendents of participating LEAs must agree to all assurances and provide the necessary signatures. It is required that all applicants demonstrate an increasing commitment to achieving the federal grant goals that extend well beyond the boundaries of this application. In particular, LEAs are expected (a) to demonstrate increased coordination of federal (e.g. Title I, II, VI) and state funds to support teaching, learning, and technology; (b) to increase the ability of teachers to teach; and (c) to enable students to meet challenging State standards, including technology literacy. Superintendents must agree that financial resources provided under the EETT grant will supplement, not supplant, state and local funds. A requirement of receiving EETT funds is evidence of compliance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). LEAs must provide the Arkansas Department of Education with a copy of their CIPA certificate as proof that schools have adopted and are enforcing Internet safety policies, including Internet filtering. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 4 Procedure for Applying for EETT Funds Letter of Intent Before the Department of Education will accept a proposal for an EETT competitive grant, applicants must complete and submit a Notice of Intent to Submit Proposal. The Notice of Intent form is provided on page 11 of this RFP. All items on the ‘Notice of Intent’ must be completed in full. Notices of Intent must be received by April 23, 2004 by fax, email, or postal service. . Application Deadline Applications requesting funding must be submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education by 3:00 pm on Thursday, May 13, 2004. Application Components An EETT Competitive Grant application is complete when it includes ALL of the following: Cover Page (Form 2) with ALL requested information; Assurances (Form 3) with authorized signatures signed in blue ink; Executive Summary and Contextual Background (Form 4) which provides a brief description of the project and brief background information on the applicant; Accountability Measures/Evaluation (Form 5) which defines what the applicant proposes to achieve and how that will be measured; Strategies Chart (Form 6) which describes specific strategies and actions to achieve the goals and target indicators; Budget Summary & Budget Detail (Form 7) which identifies specific technologies to be acquired and cost of items; Convergence of Resources and Involvement of Non-Public Schools (Form 8) which describes coordinated activities provided through other funding sources and the manner in which non-public schools have been involved in the design, development, and implementation of grant activities; Technology Plan (Form 9) indicating the LEA has an approved technology plan on file at the Arkansas Department of Education. A copy of the application Executive Summary and Contextual Background must be submitted on a CD or 3.5-inch diskette in either Microsoft Word or Corel WordPerfect format. All applicants must submit one (1) original application signed in blue ink and four (4) additional copies. All originals must be signed in blue ink. Please staple application in upper left corner……NO notebooks, binders, or special binding, please! Mail complete application to: Melanie Bradford Technology Resources and Planning Arkansas Department of Education 8221 Ranch Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72223 Applications will not be accepted via fax or email transmission. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 5 Review Process ADE will employ a review procedure that is based on an evaluation of the written proposals and interviews of the prospective staff by a review team that will include out-of-state reviewers. The steps in the review process are outlined below. 1. Proposals will be sent to the review team prior to their arrival at the Arkansas Department of Education Technology Center. 2. The review team will interview key project personnel involved in proposals under review. A consensus report will be written by the review team that will: a. separately assess each proposal according to the criteria identified in this RFP; b. recommend improvements in proposals where appropriate; and rate each proposal in one of the following categories: “Approved for Funding,” “Not Approved for Funding.” Proposals recommended as “Approved” may require certain modifications and/or contingencies to be addressed as identified by the reviewers. Note: The Department of Education may reject applications that do not conform to the requirements of the RFP. Applications may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: application is incomplete or contains irregularities that make the application indefinite or ambiguous; authorized representative of the applicant has not signed the application; application contains false or misleading statements or references; or application does not meet all minimum technical requirements of the RFP. Evaluation To be considered for an EETT Competitive Grant, applicants must have completed all required End-of-Year Reports for technology grants awarded in previous years. Additionally, all EETT Competitive Grant awardees are required to participate in evaluation efforts related to the technology initiatives implemented. Technology Training Evaluation - must be completed by every participant in all training sessions funded by EETT funds. End of Project Evaluation - should reflect how districts obtained their goals and target indicators that were established in the grant application. Guidelines for Completing Application Components Cover Sheet & Assurances (Forms 2 & 3) Complete all information on the Cover Sheet (Form 2). The district Superintendent should identify one person to serve as the main Project Coordinator and name that person on the Cover Sheet. The Project Coordinator will serve as the liaison between the LEA and the Arkansas Department of Education. Please note that the district Superintendent and the Technology Project Coordinator must each have a separate, valid, e-mail address that is checked regularly. These e-mail addresses must be provided on Form 2. It is also required that each principal of a targeted school has e-mail capability. E-mail will be the method for communication with all awardees. Awardees will receive award notifications via email. Throughout the period of the grant, grantees could be required to download information from the Internet and submit data via email. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 6 Abstract & Contextual Background (Form 4) The Abstract, not to exceed 250 words, is an overview of the application. It should concisely summarize the more detailed information presented in the proposal - a brief description of the project, goals, and expected outcomes. The Contextual Background, not to exceed 250 words, should assist the reviewer in understanding the context for your proposal. It should speak to the needs of the applicant’s district/school and the resources currently available to support the work of the proposal. The applicant should also include what has been previously accomplished with technology grant funding and demonstrates effective and successful use of previous technology awards. Accountability Measures (Form 5) The applicant must provide a detailed description of the process and accountability measures that will be used to evaluate the extent to which activities funded under this subpart are effective in integrating technology into curricula and instruction, increasing the ability of teachers to teach, and enabling students to meet challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards. The Project Accountability Measures/Evaluation chart, Form 5, must be completed and must define what the applicant proposes to achieve and measure if funds are awarded for the proposal. The Enhancing Education through Technology (EETT) program, of the No Child Left Behind legislation, identifies specific performance goals for districts receiving funds through EETT. The EETT goals reflect overall statements of expectations arising from the purposes of the No Child Left Behind legislation. Each district and/or school applying for a proposal shall adopt these goals: 1. Student achievement, including technology literacy, of all students is improved through the use of technology. 2. Teachers effectively use technology and research-based practices to support student learning. 3. Technology is integrated throughout the curriculum. LEAs are to use performance indicators to measure their progress in meeting performance goals. Along with requiring LEAs to adopt the three key performance goals identified above, the Department requires each district to adopt, at a minimum, (a) the Department’s core set of performance indicators for these three performance goals and (b) additional performance indicators that are appropriate to the particular program and district. It is expected that for each performance goal a minimum of three performance indicators would be identified. For competitive awards, the performance indicators should be linked to the specific type of competitive award being sought. As an example, relative to the first performance goal, “Student achievement, including technology literacy, of all students is improved through the use of technology,” the department would require all districts to use the following indicator: Performance Indicator 1.1: The percentage of students by end of grade 8 that meet or exceed state standards for student literacy in technology. The Sample Performance Indicators chart, located in Appendix B, provides additional guidance in the identification of other possible performance indicators. For each performance indicator, the district/school must provide a specific Performance Target that defines the progress a district/school expects to make at specified points in time with respect to each indicator. For example, for performance indicator 1.1, the district/school might adopt as a target: The percentage of students by end of grade 8 Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 7 that meet or exceed state standards for student literacy in technology will increase from “x” percent in 2003-2004, to “y” percent in 2004-2005, to “z” percent in 2005-2006. While each district/school is required to adopt the core goals and performance indicators that the department has established, the district would define and adopt its own performance targets. See Appendix C for the EETT goals and indicators that the department would require districts to adopt and some examples of additional performance indicators and some examples of performance targets that districts might choose to use. Finally, the accountability system must provide for appropriate collection of data that will explain how well districts are succeeding in meeting their performance targets. Districts/schools would describe the timelines and benchmarks for securing these data, as well as the data sources. Districts/schools must also provide “baseline data” in the context of the defined performance target; that is, for each performance target, a number must be provided for the baseline year. In short, the project Accountability Measures/Evaluation Chart (Form 5) provides the entire context for the remainder of the application. Performance goals, performance indicators, and performance targets must drive all proposed strategies and activities. Strategies (Form 6) The Strategies form (Form 6) identifies the “how” and the “what” of the proposal. In this section of the application, the applicant must identify the specific actions and strategies that will be implemented to reach the performance goals. In addition to targeting performance goals, the identified actions and strategies should (1) reflect the district’s overall strategic plan for technology, (2) speak to strategies required by the EETT legislation, and (3) address the minimal components defined for the particular type of competitive award being sought. The Arkansas Educational Technology Plan provides a resource for possible local strategies. For each area below, describe what activities and actions will be employed within the context of the particular grant proposal. Applicant must address each strategy area – access to computers, professional development, student achievement, integration of technology, and parental involvement – in the context of the particular category of grant. 1. Strategies to increase access to computers and internet connectivity In this section, describe what the district will do to assure that the appropriate level of computers and connectivity is available in the schools and classrooms to accomplish the goals of the proposal. The applicant must include a description of the steps that will be taken to ensure that all students and teachers in the schools served by the LEA have increased access to educational technology. At a minimum, these actions should speak to how school and classroom connectivity will be improved, how the number of computers available in actual instructional classrooms will be improved, and how the number of schools in which all students are able to work from a networked computer will be increased, including how the applicant will use funds under this grant to help ensure that students in high-poverty and high-needs schools have access to technology. 2. Strategies to provide ongoing professional development for teachers, principals, administrators, school library personnel In this section, identify the comprehensive professional development program that will support the proposal and further effective use of technology in the classroom or library media center, including a list of any entities that will be involved in providing the ongoing, sustained professional development. In particular, the applicant should describe how professional development initiatives will be utilized and to what extent. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 8 Note: a recipient shall use not less than 25% of EETT funds to provide ongoing, sustained, and intensive high-quality professional development that is based on relevant research. 3. Strategies to improve student achievement, including technology literacy In this section, spell out the actions (e.g. teaching practices, instructional strategies, curricula materials, etc.) that will be implemented to increase student achievement and technology literacy through the effective use of technology. The applicant could include in this discussion, identification of ways that the district might capitalize on the potential of distance learning to meet the curriculum needs of students, particularly for those areas that would not otherwise have access to such courses and curricula due to geographical isolation or insufficient resources. 4. Strategies to ensure integration of technology into curriculum and instruction In this section, describe how you will identify and promote curricula and teaching strategies that integrate technology (including software and other electronically delivered learning materials) effectively into curricula and instruction, and a timeline for such integration. As in previous sections, the applicant should identify ways that other resources will be utilized. Applicants may identify ways in which they will prepare and compensate one or more teachers in schools as technology leaders who are provided with the means to serve as experts and train other teachers in the effective use of technology in the particular school. 4. Strategies to ensure the effective use of technology to promote parental involvement and increase communication with parents In this section, include a description of how the applicant will ensure the effective use of technology to promote parental involvement and increase communication with parents, including a description of how parents will be informed of the technology being applied in their child’s education. Applicants can explore ways that technology can develop or expand efforts to connect schools and teachers with parents and students to promote meaningful parental involvement, to foster increased communication about curricula, assignments, and assessments between students, parents, and teacher. Budget Summary & Budget Detail Narrative (Form 7) Budget Summary Form The applicant should provide a complete budget summary of all expenditures related to the project. LEA’s whose proposals are approved for funding may be required to submit a revised budget after final approval. The Department of Education must approve final budgets before any grant funds are released for disbursement. Unless prior approval is obtained, all EETT monies awarded should be expended by September 30, 2005. Budget Detail Narrative Reviewers will carefully examine all the budget materials to assess whether the budget is appropriate to the tasks you propose in the Strategies section of the application. In the budget narrative, the applicant must fully explain each budget item included on the Budget Summary form. The budget must be reasonable for the tasks proposed, and the relationship of items in the budget to the Accountability Measures and Strategies must be clearly evident. Clarity and cost-effectiveness of the budget are factors the reviewers will consider when evaluating the feasibility of a project. In the budget detail narrative, you will want to discuss any budget items that may appear unusual. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 9 For each hardware and software purchase, the budget detail narrative should provide specific information as to what items are being purchased (item cost, vendor, model/name, state contract number, if available, etc.) Inventory of Property Must Be Maintained Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of property, who holds the title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of federal participation in the cost of the property, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. (EDGAR, Subpart Convergence of Resources & Involvement of Non-Public Schools (Form 8) Provide a description, approximately 200 words, of how you will coordinate activities carried out with funds provided under this grant with technology-related activities carried out with funds available under other Federal, State, and local sources. Also, include a description of support resources (such as services, software, other electronically delivered learning materials, and print resources) that will be acquired to ensure successful and effective uses of technology. Federal legislation requires that LEAs and eligible local entities must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of programs and continue the consultation throughout the implementation of these programs. LEAs and local entities must provide, on an equitable basis, special educational services or other benefits that address the needs under the EETT program of children, teachers, and other educational personnel in private schools in areas served by the LEAs and local entities. Expenditures for educational services and other benefits for private school children and educators must be proportionate to the expenditures for participating public school children, taking into account the number and needs of the children to be served. In this section, the applicant must identify, in approximately 200 words, (a) the private schools in the areas served by the applicant, (b) the type and extent of consultation that took place during the design and development of this proposed program, and (c) the type and extent of collaboration that will occur during the implementation of the proposal. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 10 FORM 1 - Notice of Intent to Submit Proposal Enhancing Education Through Technology For planning purposes for the Enhancing Education through Technology Program, Section II, Part D of the No Child Left Behind Act, this form must be received by April 23, 2004 Enhancing Education LEA Through Technology Grant Name:_____________________________ Contact Person: _________________________________ Title: _________________________________ Address: Please Submit to: _________________________________ Melanie Bradford City: Technology Resources & Planning _________________________________ Arkansas Department of Education County: 8221 Ranch Boulevard ___________________Zip:___________ Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: Fax: 501.371.5010 ________________Ext.______________ Fax: _________________________________ E-mail _________________________________ Notice of Intent to Submit Proposal Proposal Category: (Indicate one category for which you are applying) State Professional Development Initiative Local Education Agency Proposal Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 11 FORM 2 – Application Cover Sheet Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Award 1. Name of Legal Applicant (LEA that Proposal Category: (check one) will serve as the Fiscal Agent: State Professional Development Initiative Local Education Agency Proposal 2. LEA Superintendent /Education 3. EETT Grant/Project Coordinator Service Coop Director Name: Name: Address Address: Telephone: Telephone: Fax: Fax: Email (must be valid email address): Email (must be valid email address): 4. Amount of Funding Requested: 5. Partners: Names of other institutions or LEAs participating in this application. Include contact person’s name and email address for each participating institution or LEA. Check one: High need LEA Eligible Local Partnership 6. Describe how you meet the definition for either high-need LEA or eligible local partnership. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 12 FORM 3 – Assurances Please read carefully. The following assurances must be implemented in your school/district as a condition of accepting funds through the Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive grant. Program Assurances: A planning committee was involved in the development of this application, and a consensus was reached regarding priorities for the proposal. A District Technology Plan aligned with the current state technology plan has been approved by the Arkansas Department of Education. Policies pertaining to the ethical, legal, and appropriate use of software and the Internet are in place and enforced in all schools in the district. This includes an Acceptable Use Policy for every school. Electrical wiring needs have been identified and addressed in the school(s) that will be utilizing these funds. The funds will only be utilized in the school(s) identified in this application, and all of the designated schools have developed and have on file written plans for technology that can be viewed at any time by state personnel. Any equipment and software purchased will supplement, not supplant, the level of services that would have been provided in the absence of monies received from this fund. Hardware and software will only be placed in classrooms or other educational settings with trained individuals or with individuals who are receiving training. The LEA will be accountable for the accurate tracking and inventorying of all equipment and software purchased with these funds The LEA will be accountable for the evaluation of all activities outlined in this application. The LEA assures the Arkansas Department of Education that the district conducted a needs assessment and based all relevant elements in this application upon the needs assessment. The LEA assures that representatives of eligible private schools within the school district have engaged in meaningful consultation with the district in the development of this application and in determining the allocation of funds that support services to eligible private school students. The applicant agency will maintain records, which document private involvement and impact of programs at private sites. All private schools have been given an invitation to participate in programs for which they are eligible. The LEA assures that sufficient information will be provided to the Arkansas Department of Education to enable the state to comply with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The LEA assures that the district will account for the need for equitable access to, and equitable participation, in all programs for students, teachers, administrators, and other program beneficiaries. Further, the LEA will address barriers that impede equitable access and participation, including barriers related to sex, race, color, national origin, disability, and age. The LEA assures that each school in the district has a school improvement plan. Fiscal Assurances The certification of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 76.104, relating to State eligibility to participate in this program and compatibility of this application with State law; The assurances specified in section 441 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA); The assurances set forth in Public Law 103-382, Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology. All program requirements of Public Law 103-382, Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology. All other applicable requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including those set out in Title XIV of that statute. The LEA assures that records concerning financial accounting and program evaluation will be maintained by the applicant agency and will be available for review by the Arkansas Department of Education, legislative auditors, and all other required personnel for at least three years. The LEA assures that it will permit the Arkansas Department of Education, the legislative auditors, and all other required personnel to have access to the records and financial statements as necessary. I am authorized to sign and submit this application on behalf of the LEA and agree to all assurances listed above: ______________________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of LEA Superintendent or Education Service Coop Director Date Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 13 FORM 4 – Project Executive Summary PROJECT ABSTRACT: (250 Word Limit) Provide a clear, concise description of the proposal. The description should include a statement of the overall intent of this year’s funds, goals of the proposal, design to accomplish those goals, curriculum and grade level targets, etc. This description should give a snapshot of what this year’s funds will be used for in the system/schools. This abstract will be shared with policymakers, the media, and evaluation consultants. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND: (250 Word Limit) Provide the reviewer with an understanding of the context for your proposal. It should address the needs of the applicant’s district/school and the resources currently available to support the work of the proposal. The applicant should also include what has been previously accomplished with technology grant funding and demonstrates effective and successful use of previous technology awards. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 14 FORM 5 – Accountability Measures/Evaluation Chart Performance Goal 1: Student achievement, including technology literacy, of all students is improved through the use of technology Performance Indicator 1.1 The percentage of students by the end of grade 8 that meet or exceed state guidelines for student literacy in technology. (The State Board of Education has adopted the ISTE Student Technology Standards.) Performance Target 1.1 The percentage of students by end of grade 8 that meet or exceed state standards for student literacy in technology will increase from a baseline of <TBD>% in <insert baseline school year>, to <insert number>% in <insert school year>, to <insert number>% in <insert school year>. Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Performance Indicator 1.2 Performance Target 1.2 Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Performance Indicator 1.3 Performance Target 1.3 Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 15 Performance Goal 2: Teachers effectively use technology and research-based practices to support student learning Performance Indicator 2.1 The percentage of teachers qualified to use technology for instruction. (The State Board of Education has adopted the ISTE Teacher Technology Standards.) Performance Target 2.1 The percentage of teachers who are qualified to use technology for instruction will increase from the baseline of <insert number>% in 2003-2004, to <insert number>% in 2004-2005, to <insert number>% in 2005-2006. Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Performance Indicator 2.2 Performance Target 2.2 Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Performance Indicator 2.3 Performance Target 2.3 Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 16 Performance Goal 3: Technology is integrated throughout the curriculum Performance Indicator 3.1 The number of schools in which all students are able to work from a networked computer. Performance Target 3.1 The number of schools in which all students are able to work from a networked computers will increase from the baseline of <TBD> in <insert baseline school year>, to <insert number> in <insert school year>, to <insert number> in <insert school year>. Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Performance Indicator 3.2 Performance Target 3.2 Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 17 FORM 6 – Strategies Chart Describe the specific strategies and actions that will be implemented to achieve the goals and target indicators described in the previous section. Your plan of action should include one or more actions in each of the categories below. In addition to describing the strategy, provide a timeframe for implementation of the action and specify the performance indicator(s) that this particular action supports. Performance Strategy or Action Timeline Indicator Strategies to increase access to computers and internet connectivity Strategies to provide ongoing professional development for teachers, principals, administrators, school library personnel Strategies to improve student achievement, including technology literacy Strategies to ensure integration of technology into curriculum and instruction Strategies to ensure the effective use of technology to promote parental involvement and increase communication with parents Other Strategies Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 18 FORM 7 – Budget Summary In the space below, list the proposed expenditures by category. These categories are consistent with the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Arkansas Public School Computer Network (APSCN) codes may be substituted. Budget Summary - Expenditure Category Budget 10 Salaries – Salaries for special project personnel may be included. Salaries of existing employees with existing job responsibilities may not be supplanted by grant funds. 20 Employee Benefits – Employee benefits related to stipends for teachers or other regular employees who work outside their regular contract may be included. 31 Purchased Professional and Technical Services - Services which by their nature must be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. Included are the services of engineers, auditors, teachers, presenters, facilitators, etc. Consultant services, including travel, meals, lodging, honoraria/fees, materials and related expenses, in-service training costs including teacher stipends, facility rentals, meals, lodging, refreshments, substitute costs, etc. are included. 32 Purchased Property Services - Services purchased to operate, repair, maintain and rent property owned and/ or used by the LEA. These services are performed by persons other than LEA employees. 39 Other Purchased Services - Amounts paid for services rendered by organizations or personnel not on the payroll of the LEA (separate from Professional/Technical services or Property Services). 40 Supplies - Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out or deteriorated through use. Items may include audio and videotapes, software, books, manuals, reproduction costs, paper, binders, etc. 50 Equipment - Items may include hardware, computer workstations, file servers, connectivity hardware, peripherals, laser discs, etc. 90 Other -This category is seldom used, but is included for use with any expenditure that does not fit any of the other allowable categories. Total Operating Budget (Function code: 1190 for all categories) Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 19 II. Budget Detail Narrative: Attach a detailed description (two pages or less) of proposed budget expenditures broken out within each of the expenditure categories listed above. Amounts budgeted for federal funds must be in accordance with Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). Expenditures must be justified in relation to the scope of the project goals, objectives and activities. Funds requested under this grant must not replace monies used to support existing programs. All funds must be spent (goods received and services rendered) during the grant period designated in the Grant Award Notification. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 20 FORM 8 – Convergence of Resources and Involvement of Non-public Schools Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant Convergence of Resources: Provide a description of how you coordinate activities carried out with funds provided under this grant with technology-related activities carried out with funds available under other Federal, State, and local sources. Also, include a description of support resources (such as services, software, other electronically delivered learning materials, and print resources) that will be acquired to ensure successful and effective uses of technology. (200 Word Limit) Involvement of Non-Public Schools: In this section, the applicant must identify (a) the private schools in the areas served by the applicant, (b) the type and extent of consultation that took place during the design and development of this proposed program, and (c) the type and extent of collaboration that will occur during the implementation of the proposal. (200 Word Limit) Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 21 FORM 9 – District Technology Plan Every LEA applying for EETT funding is required to have a state-approved district/school technology plan that is aligned with the current state technology plan. As a component of a state-approved plan, LEAs must maintain a process to monitor and update the existing plan for technology. Check one: District technology plan has been approved by the Arkansas Department of Education. District technology plan has not been approved by the Arkansas Department of Education. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 22 FORM 10 – State Review Committee: Criteria for EETT Competitive Grant Application The review team will use the charts below to determine if each applicant clearly addressed the required areas in the technology application. It is in the best interest of the applicant to use this form as a guide in writing the proposal, to ensure that all required components are clearly addressed. Name of LEA Fiscal Agent LEA’s EETT Formula Allocation Check one. LEA Fiscal Agent is applying as ____a high-need LEA ____eligible local partnership Name(s) of Partner LEAS Partner LEA’s EETT Formula Allocation Title of Proposal: Category of Grant: Statewide Professional Development Initiative LEA Proposal Amount of Funding Requested % of Funding for Professional Development Cover Sheet and Assurances (Forms 2 and 3) Key Issues and Questions Acceptable Not Comments Acceptable Successful programs provide clear and accurate information. Questions to consider: Is the information on the Cover Sheet complete? Are the Assurances (Form 3) signed in blue ink? Is information complete and accurate? Maximum Possible Score: 2 pts Score Assigned by the Reader: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 23 Project Executive Summary (Form 4 – Project Executive Summary) Not Key Issues and Questions Acceptable Acceptable Comments Successful programs provide a thoughtful, concise overview of the proposed program. Questions to consider: Is the overall intent of the proposed program clear from the Executive Summary? Does the Executive Summary provide a strong indication as to how funds be used? Are the goals of the project clearly stated? Does the Executive Summary provide a snapshot of the project design and/or focus areas (e.g. curriculum areas and/or grade levels will be impacted)? Maximum Possible Score: 5 pts Score Assigned by the Reader: Contextual Background (Form 4 – Project Contextual Background) Not Key Issues and Questions Acceptable Acceptable Comments Successful programs effectively identify the needs of the applicant(s), resources currently available to support program, and previous accomplishments with technology grant funding. Questions to consider: Is there a compelling reason for this project? Is there a demonstrated commitment from the LEA(s)? How does this project impact a high-need LEA? Does the applicant provide evidence of successful prior grant implementation? Maximum Possible Score: 5 pts Score Assigned by the Reader: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 24 Accountability Measures/Evaluation Chart (Form 5) Not Key Issues and Questions Acceptable Acceptable Comments Successful programs have a detailed description of the process and accountability measures that will be used to evaluate the extent to which activities funded under this subpart are effective in (1) integrating technology into curricula and instruction, (2) increasing the ability of teachers to teach, and (3) enabling students to meet challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards. Questions to be answered: Does the application include at least three performance indicators for each of the three performance goals? Are specific performance targets given for each performance indicator? Do they address the particular category of grant? Does each performance target have an appropriate data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data? Maximum Possible Score: 30 pts Score Assigned by the Reader: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 25 Strategies Chart (Form 6) Not Key Issues and Questions Acceptable Acceptable Comments Successful programs have a detailed process for ensuring that performance goals will be met. Questions to consider: Does the application contain a specific timeline and reasonable process that will ensure that program goals will be met? Do the identified actions and strategies focus on the needs of the high-need LEA? Are the identified actions and strategies consistent with the overall strategic plan for technology for the applying district(s)? Do the identified actions and strategies speak to strategies required by the EETT legislation? Does the proposal show collaboration? What type of professional development will be provided for teachers and administrators? Are program activities designed to assist teachers and administrators in implementing new instructional strategies? Is a specific time of implementation and completion identified for each activity/strategy? Is each strategy/action correlated with one or more performance indicators? Maximum Possible Score: 35 pts Score Assigned by the Reader Description of Technologies Not Key Issues and Questions Acceptable Acceptable Comments Successful programs effectively identify the technologies necessary to support the program. Questions to answer: Is there a complete list and description of the type and costs of the technologies to be purchase? Are there specific provisions for interoperability among components of such technologies? Maximum Possible Score: 2 pts Score Assigned by the Reader: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 26 Budget Forms and Narrative – Form 7 Not Key Issues and Questions Acceptable Acceptable Comments Successful programs allocate adequate resources to achieve program goals in an appropriate manner. Questions to answer: Is the allocation of resources consistent with program goals and objectives? Are expenditures justified? Are forms complete? Are plans appropriate? Are at least 25% of the funds allocated to ongoing, sustained, and intensive, high –quality professional development? Maximum Possible Score: 15 pts Score Assigned by the Reader: Convergence of Resources and Involvement of Non-Public Schools (Form 8) Not Key Issues and Questions Acceptable Acceptable Comments Successful programs begin with a base of collaboration. Questions to answer: How will activities carried out with funds provided under this grant be coordinated with technology- related activities carried out with funds available under other Federal, State, and local sources? How will other resources be used to ensure successful and effective uses of technology? Does the application include a detailed listing of the private schools in the area served by the applicant? Does the application detail the consultation that took place with the non-publics during the planning process? How will ongoing involvement, collaboration, and cooperation with non-publics be ensured? Maximum Possible Score: 4 pts Score Assigned by the Reader: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 27 District Technology Plan Options (Form 9) Not Key Issues and Questions Acceptable Acceptable Comments Successful programs are aligned with a District/School technology plan that is consistent with the state technology plan. Questions to answer: Does the LEA Has the district plan been aligned with state technology plan and federal EETT legislation? Maximum Possible Score: 2 pts Score Assigned by the Reader: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 28 APPENDIX A – US Census Poverty Data by District Percentage of Students from families below NCES ID LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY poverty line 502220 ACORN SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.2% 502250 ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.0% 502280 ALPENA SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.5% 502310 ALREAD SCHOOL DISTRICT 26.8% 502330 ALTHEIMER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 31.9% 502370 ALTUSDENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT 30.8% 502430 ARKADELPHIA SCHOOLS 20.4% 502460 ARKANSAS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 33.6% 502550 ARMOREL SCHOOL DISTRICT 4.3% 502580 ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.9% 502610 ATKINS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 22.0% 502670 AUGUSTA SCHOOL DISTRICT 35.8% 502700 BALD KNOB SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.9% 502730 BARTONLEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.8% 500019 BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.7% 502790 BAUXITE SCHOOL DISTRICT 11.6% 502820 BAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.5% 500032 BEARDEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 22.5% 502880 BEEBE SCHOOL DISTRICT 14.7% 502960 BENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 8.8% 503060 BENTONVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 11.0% 503090 BERGMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.6% 503150 BERRYVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 21.3% 503210 BIGGERS REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT 37.4% 503240 BISMARCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 17.1% 503270 BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.7% 503300 BLEVINS SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.9% 503320 BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 32.7% 503450 BOONEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.9% 503480 BRADFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT 22.4% 503510 BRADLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 33.3% 503570 BRIGHT STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.2% 503630 BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 29.5% 503640 BROOKLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.9% 503690 BRYANT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8.9% 503710 BUFFALO ISLAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRI 13.5% 503750 CABOT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 10.4% 503770 CADDO HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT 26.6% 503840 CALICO ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 26.6% 506060 CAMDEN FAIRVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.1% 503960 CARLISLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.9% 503990 CARTHAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT 24.4% Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 29 504050 CAVE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.8% 504080 CEDARVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.0% 506690 CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT 22.5% 504200 CHARLESTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 10.8% 504350 CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT 29.2% 504380 CLARKSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.0% 504370 CLAY COUNTY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.4% 504410 CLINTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 24.1% 504560 CONCORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 16.9% 504590 CONWAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 14.0% 504620 CORDCHARLOTTE SCHOOL DISTRICT 21.2% 500009 CORNING PUBLIC SCHOOLS 26.2% 504680 COTTER SCHOOL DISTRICT 23.2% 504710 COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT 48.3% 504740 COUNTY LINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.2% 504770 CRAWFORDSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 10.9% 507740 CROSS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 26.5% 504800 CROSSETT SCHOOL DISTRICT 21.6% 504830 CUSHMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.0% 504860 CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.4% 504890 DANVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.9% 504930 DARDANELLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 15.3% 500049 DE QUEEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 24.5% 505310 DE VALLS BLUFF SCHOOLS 22.5% 504980 DECATUR SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.6% 505010 DEER PUBLIC SCHOOLS 27.7% 505040 DELAPLAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 29.1% 505070 DELIGHT SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.0% 505110 DELTA SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 22.4% 505170 DERMOTT SCHOOL DISTRICT 31.1% 505190 DES ARC PUBLIC SCHOOLS 23.1% 500001 DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.2% 505340 DIERKS SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.2% 505410 DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 35.9% 505430 DOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.2% 505470 DREW CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.1% 505500 DUMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT 06 28.7% 505550 EARLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 44.5% 505580 EAST END SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.9% 500048 EAST POINSETT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 23.6% 505680 EL DORADO SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.9% 505740 ELAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 43.1% 505760 ELKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT 10 12.1% 505790 EMERSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.1% 505820 EMMET SCHOOL DISTRICT 31.3% 505850 ENGLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.8% 500007 EUDORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 33.4% 505970 EUREKA SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 23.0% 506000 EVENING SHADE SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.1% 506090 FARMINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 6.0% 506120 FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 16.0% 506150 FLIPPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.6% Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 30 506210 FORDYCE SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.8% 506240 FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 22.3% 506270 FORREST CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 31.7% 506330 FORT SMITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS 19.7% 506360 FOUKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 9.5% 506390 FOUNTAIN HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT 9.3% 506420 FOUNTAIN LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 29.1% 506450 FOURCHE VALLEY SCHOOLS 22.2% 504110 GENOA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.8% 506540 GENTRY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 10.9% 506570 GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.7% 506630 GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT 14.8% 500029 GOSNELL SCHOOL DISTRICT 14.9% 506750 GOULD SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.4% 506780 GRADY SCHOOL DISTRICT 33.7% 506840 GRAVETTE SCHOOL DISTRICT 13.1% 506870 GREEN FOREST SCHOOL DISTRICT 14.8% 506900 GREENBRIER SCHOOL DISTRICT 11.7% 513080 GREENE COUNTY TECH SCHOOL DISTRICT 14.4% 506930 GREENLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 11.4% 506990 GREENWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 7.9% 507110 GURDON SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.1% 507140 GUYPERKINS SCHOOLS 20.7% 507170 HACKETT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 9.5% 500042 HAMBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT 27.2% 507230 HAMPTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.7% 507320 HARMONY GROVE DISTRICT 12.9% 507290 HARMONY GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 7.5% 507350 HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.2% 507380 HARRISON SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.1% 507410 HARTFORD DISTRICT 94 18.1% 507470 HATFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 27.1% 507530 HAZEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 16.0% 507560 HEBER SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.0% 507620 HECTOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS 22.5% 507680 HELENAW. HELENA SCHOOLS 36.1% 507710 HERMITAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT 30.0% 507770 HIGHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 26.3% 507800 HOLLY GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 38.7% 507840 HOPE SCHOOL DISTRICT 27.6% 507860 HORATIO SCHOOL DISTRICT 21.8% 507890 HOT SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 34.5% 507990 HOXIE CONSOLIDATED 46 26.5% 508010 HUGHES SCHOOL DISTRICT 32.7% 508100 HUMPHREY SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.4% 508130 HUNTSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.6% 508160 HUTTIG SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.7% 500021 IZARD CTY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS 23.9% 513230 JACKSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 13.3% 508240 JASPER SCHOOL DISTRICT 27.5% 507920 JESSIEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 8.5% 508280 JONESBORO PUBLIC SCHOOLS 22.8% Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 31 508340 JUNCTION CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 13.7% 500010 KINGSLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.3% 508460 KINGSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 14.5% 508490 KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT 28.9% 508610 LAKE HAMILTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.5% 508640 LAKESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 34.4% 508670 LAKESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 13.2% 507650 LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 39.8% 508700 LAMAR SCHOOL DISTRICT 14.0% 508730 LAVACA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 11.4% 503420 LEAD HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT 23.3% 509360 LEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 32.2% 508880 LESLIE SCHOOL DISTRICT 33.1% 508910 LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 31.4% 508940 LINCOLN SCHOOL DISTRICT 22.3% 509000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.1% 509030 LOCKESBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.4% 509060 LONOKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.0% 509120 LYNN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 15.8% 509150 MAGAZINE SCHOOLS 20.6% 509190 MAGNET COVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.6% 500044 MAGNOLIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 24.3% 509240 MALVERN SPECIAL SCHOOL 18.6% 509270 MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOLS 21.1% 500046 MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT 13.4% 509330 MANSFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.8% 509410 MARION COUNTY RURAL SCHOOLS 27.7% 509390 MARION SCHOOL DISTRICT 10.6% 509420 MARKED TREE SCHOOL DISTRICT 31.7% 500016 MARMADUKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.7% 509480 MARSHALL SCHOOL DISTRICT 26.5% 509510 MARVELL SCHOOL DISTRICT 38.3% 509540 MAYFLOWER SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.1% 509570 MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.5% 509600 MCCRORY SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.6% 509630 MCGEHEE SCHOOL DISTRICT 30.6% 509660 MCNEIL SCHOOL DISTRICT 36.5% 509690 MCRAE SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.5% 509720 MELBOURNE SCHOOL DISTRICT 23.2% 509750 MENA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 22.2% 500020 MIDLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 13.3% 509780 MINERAL SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 21.7% 509840 MONTICELLO SCHOOL DISTRICT 26.9% 509960 MOUNT HOLLY SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.2% 509990 MOUNT IDA SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.6% 510050 MOUNT PLEASANT SCHOOL DISTRICT 11.4% 500043 MOUNTAIN HOME SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.3% 510170 MOUNTAIN PINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.8% 510200 MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.6% 510260 MOUNTAINBURG SCHOOLS 17.9% 510020 MT. JUDEA SCHOOL DISTRICT 28.1% 510080 MT.VERNONENOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT 11.2% Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 32 510290 MULBERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.5% 510320 MURFREESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.3% 510380 NASHVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.6% 510410 NEMO VISTA SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.7% 510440 NETTLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT 16.0% 500030 NEVADA SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.8% 510500 NEWARK SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.1% 500023 NEWPORT SCHOOL DISTRICT 28.1% 510560 NORFORK SCHOOLS 17.6% 510620 NORPHLET SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.7% 510680 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 22.3% 510770 OARK SCHOOL DISTRICT 28.7% 510800 ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 23.8% 510890 OLA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 23.2% 510920 OMAHA SCHOOL DISTRICT 28.4% 510950 OSCEOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT 32.9% 510980 OUACHITA SCHOOL DISTRICT 16.2% 511010 OZARK SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.2% 500051 PALESTINEWHEATLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.5% 511070 PANGBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 16.8% 500017 PARAGOULD SCHOOL DISTRICT 13.9% 511130 PARIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.8% 511220 PARKERS CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT 13.0% 511250 PARKIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 37.4% 503000 PARON SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 15.7% 503030 PEA RIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT 11.5% 511310 PERRYCASA SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.7% 511340 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.1% 511370 PIGGOTT SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.0% 500026 PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT 28.7% 511460 PLAINVIEWROVER SCHOOL DISTRICT 21.1% 511520 PLEASANT VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.0% 511610 POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT 21.9% 511700 POTTSVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 28.1% 511730 POYEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 16.4% 511760 PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 14.4% 511820 PRESCOTT SCHOOL DISTRICT 24.2% 511850 PULASKI CO. SPEC. SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.1% 511880 QUITMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.2% 511640 RANDOLPH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 16.0% 511940 RISON SCHOOL DISTRICT 31.1% 512900 RIVER VALLEY SCHOOLS 9.1% 500012 RIVERSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 22.5% 508400 RIVERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 24.4% 511970 ROGERS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 13.8% 512000 ROSE BUD SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.5% 512035 RURAL SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 28.3% 512060 RUSSELLVILLE SCHOOLS 13.6% 512090 SALEM SCHOOL DISTRICT 21.1% 512120 SARATOGA SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.0% 512150 SCOTLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 16.3% 512180 SCRANTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 8.7% Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 33 512210 SEARCY SCHOOL DISTRICT 14.1% 500015 SHERIDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.0% 512420 SHIRLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.7% 512450 SILOAM SPRINGS SCHOOLS 12.7% 512480 SLOANHENDRIX SCHOOL DISTRICT 34.9% 512510 SMACKOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT 17.3% 500045 SO MISS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 23.3% 512520 SOUTH CONWAY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 21.1% 512570 SOUTH SIDE BEE BRANCH SCHOOLS 14.9% 512540 SOUTHSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 27.0% 512600 SPARKMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 29.3% 512630 SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT 14.6% 512660 SPRINGDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT 14.4% 512720 ST. JOE SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.4% 512750 ST. PAUL SCHOOL DISTRICT 28.9% 512780 STAMPS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 21.6% 500028 STAR CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 21.6% 512870 STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT 34.8% 513265 STONE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 23.4% 512930 STRONG SCHOOL DISTRICT 22.7% 512960 STUTTGART SCHOOL DISTRICT 23.0% 512990 SULPHUR ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 11.6% 513020 SWIFTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 29.0% 513050 TAYLOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 13.0% 513110 TEXARKANA SCHOOL DISTRICT 25.8% 500047 TRUMANN SCHOOLS 23.7% 513260 TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT 32.6% 510650 UMPIRE SCHOOL DISTRICT 19.1% 505670 UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.6% 513350 VALLEY SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 22.3% 513380 VALLEY VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 1.8% 513410 VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT 18.6% 513440 VANCOVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 23.0% 513530 VILONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7.3% 513560 VIOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.0% 513650 WALDO SCHOOL DISTRICT 30.6% 513680 WALDRON SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.9% 513710 WALKER SCHOOL DISTRICT 24.2% 513740 WALNUT RIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.5% 500006 WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT 26.4% 513930 WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT 20.0% 513950 WEINER SCHOOL DISTRICT 13.1% 514010 WEST FORK DISTRICT 141 15.0% 508040 WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 34.4% 514040 WEST SIDE 4 SCHOOL DISTRICT 22.1% 514070 WESTERN GROVE SCHOOL 24.7% 500041 WESTERN YELL COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 24.6% 514020 WESTSIDE S.D. 40 SCHOOL DISTRICT 23.2% 504020 WESTSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 8.5% 504170 WHITE COUNTY CENTRAL 14.9% 514140 WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT 8.3% 514160 WICKES SCHOOL DISTRICT 31.0% Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 34 507590 WILBURN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 29.8% 514190 WILLIFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT 39.0% 513860 WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT 29.7% 512240 WITTS SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 36.3% 514370 WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 21.9% 514400 WOODLAWN SCHOOL DISTRICT 7.2% 514430 WYNNE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 21.7% 514490 YELLVILLE SUMMIT 4 SCHOOL DISTRICT 21.9% This listing represents all LEAs in Arkansas. Only those that have 20.7% or more of children from families with incomes below the poverty line may apply as the fiscal agent for EETT funds. Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 35 APPENDIX B – Student to Multimedia Computer Ratio Note: This information was submitted by the Local Education Agencies on APSCN, Cycle 7, in June, 2003. Additional documentation will be required for LEAs that appear to have submitted incorrect information. LEA # Local Education Agency Students Computers Ratio 6040000 ACADEMICS PLUS 148 40 3.7 5701000 ACORN SCHOOL DISTRICT 451 77 5.9 1701000 ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,916 417 7.0 0501000 ALPENA SCHOOL DISTRICT 514 124 4.1 7101000 ALREAD SCHOOL DISTRICT 81 28 2.9 3501000 ALTHEIMER UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. 502 219 2.3 2401000 ALTUS-DENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT 255 78 3.3 6091000 ARK. SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND 85 94 0.9 6092000 ARK. SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF 155 60 2.6 1002000 ARKADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,231 798 2.8 2101000 ARKANSAS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 105 69 1.5 4701000 ARMOREL SCHOOL DISTRICT 427 50 8.5 4101000 ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,656 432 3.8 5801000 ATKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,122 298 3.8 7401000 AUGUSTA SCHOOL DISTRICT 540 93 5.8 7301000 BALD KNOB SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,309 227 5.8 5401000 BARTON-LEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT 718 97 7.4 3201000 BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,099 223 9.4 6301000 BAUXITE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,017 191 5.3 1601000 BAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 620 191 3.2 5201000 BEARDEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 701 116 6.0 7302000 BEEBE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,370 452 5.2 0440000 BENTON COUNTY SCHOOL OF ARTS 311 20 15.6 6302000 BENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 4,150 781 5.3 0401000 BENTONVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,721 737 10.5 0502000 BERGMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 882 168 5.3 0801000 BERRYVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,692 265 6.4 6101000 BIGGERS-REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT 211 78 2.7 3001000 BISMARCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,045 125 8.4 3801000 BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 368 101 3.6 2901000 BLEVINS SCHOOL DISTRICT 458 137 3.3 4702000 BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 3,386 689 4.9 4201000 BOONEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,445 285 5.1 7303000 BRADFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT 563 74 7.6 3701000 BRADLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 371 69 5.4 4601000 BRIGHT STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT 181 51 3.5 4801000 BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,014 1 1014.0 1603000 BROOKLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,184 107 11.1 4503000 BRUNO-PYATT SCHOOL DISTRICT 289 11 26.3 6303000 BRYANT SCHOOL DISTRICT 5,967 1,114 5.4 Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 36 1605000 BUFFALO IS. CENTRAL SCH. DIST. 814 99 8.2 4304000 CABOT SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,496 705 10.6 4901000 CADDO HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT 603 187 3.2 3301000 CALICO ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 530 139 3.8 5204000 CAMDEN FAIRVIEW SCHOOL DIST. 3,159 683 4.6 4303000 CARLISLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 694 92 7.5 2001000 CARTHAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT 117 47 2.5 6802000 CAVE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,038 66 15.7 1702000 CEDARVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 318 2.9 5502000 CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT 952 76 12.5 2402000 CHARLESTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 842 98 8.6 4802000 CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT 551 123 4.5 3601000 CLARKSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,178 450 4.8 7102000 CLINTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,196 313 3.8 1201000 CONCORD SCHOOL DISTRICT 441 124 3.6 2301000 CONWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,109 1,443 5.6 3202000 CORD-CHARLOTTE SCHOOL DISTRICT 306 86 3.6 1101000 CORNING SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,069 147 7.3 0302000 COTTER SCHOOL DISTRICT 655 60 10.9 7402000 COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT 218 75 2.9 2403000 COUNTY LINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 571 144 4.0 1801000 CRAWFORDSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 230 78 2.9 1901000 CROSS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 756 92 8.2 0201000 CROSSETT SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,443 162 15.1 3203000 CUSHMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 386 29 13.3 2601000 CUTTER-MORNING STAR SCH. DIST. 660 125 5.3 7503000 DANVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 813 173 4.7 7504000 DARDANELLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,764 327 5.4 0402000 DECATUR SCHOOL DISTRICT 575 86 6.7 5101000 DEER SCHOOL DISTRICT 246 70 3.5 2801000 DELAPLAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 312 47 6.6 5501000 DELIGHT SCHOOL DISTRICT 385 38 10.1 2102000 DELTA SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 231 0 231.0 6701000 DEQUEEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,886 297 6.4 0901000 DERMOTT SCHOOL DISTRICT 671 303 2.2 5901000 DES ARC SCHOOL DISTRICT 660 128 5.2 5902000 DEVALLS BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT 378 62 6.1 0101000 DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,172 259 4.5 3102000 DIERKS SCHOOL DISTRICT 588 299 2.0 3502000 DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,547 96 16.1 5802000 DOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,335 276 4.8 2202000 DREW CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,013 131 7.7 2104000 DUMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,607 649 2.5 1802000 EARLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 832 74 11.2 5301000 EAST END SCHOOL DISTRICT 765 169 4.5 5608000 EAST POINSETT CO. SCHOOL DIST. 817 60 13.6 7001000 EL DORADO SCHOOL DISTRICT 4,416 722 6.1 5402000 ELAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 348 134 2.6 7201000 ELKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT 981 74 13.3 1401000 EMERSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 372 105 3.5 Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 37 5004000 EMMET SCHOOL DISTRICT 295 109 2.7 4302000 ENGLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 934 275 3.4 0902000 EUDORA SCHOOL DISTRICT 712 162 4.4 0802000 EUREKA SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 710 207 3.4 6803000 EVENING SHADE SCHOOL DISTRICT 335 47 7.1 7202000 FARMINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,759 319 5.5 7203000 FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,994 2,045 3.9 4501000 FLIPPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 941 163 5.8 2002000 FORDYCE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,194 163 7.3 4102000 FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 528 105 5.0 6201000 FORREST CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 4,045 220 18.4 6601000 FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT 12,844 3,066 4.2 4603000 FOUKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 869 217 4.0 0202000 FOUNTAIN HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT 287 45 6.4 2602000 FOUNTAIN LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,154 196 5.9 7505000 FOURCHE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 156 115 1.4 4602000 GENOA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 946 143 6.6 0403000 GENTRY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,269 1 1269.0 0102000 GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT 230 11 20.9 3002000 GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,086 119 9.1 4708000 GOSNELL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,363 192 7.1 4001000 GOULD SCHOOL DISTRICT 208 31 6.7 4002000 GRADY SCHOOL DISTRICT 247 128 1.9 0404000 GRAVETTE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,460 285 5.1 0803000 GREEN FOREST SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,236 7 176.6 2303000 GREENBRIER SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,396 412 5.8 2807000 GREENE CO. TECH SCHOOL DIST. 2,891 608 4.8 7204000 GREENLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 893 137 6.5 6602000 GREENWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 3,169 371 8.5 1003000 GURDON SCHOOL DISTRICT 867 65 13.3 2304000 GUY-PERKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT 388 110 3.5 6603000 HACKETT SCHOOL DISTRICT 565 16 35.3 0203000 HAMBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,614 284 5.7 0701000 HAMPTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 770 181 4.3 5205000 HARMONY GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 788 160 4.9 6304000 HARMONY GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 800 101 7.9 5602000 HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,063 37 28.7 0503000 HARRISON SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,796 238 11.7 6604000 HARTFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT 454 73 6.2 5702000 HATFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT 336 92 3.7 5903000 HAZEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 408 106 3.8 1202000 HEBER SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,696 0 1696.0 5803000 HECTOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 699 266 2.6 5403000 HELENA/ W.HELENA SCHOOL DIST. 3,419 506 6.8 0601000 HERMITAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT 587 90 6.5 6804000 HIGHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,539 308 5.0 4803000 HOLLY GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 242 92 2.6 2903000 HOPE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,754 381 7.2 6703000 HORATIO SCHOOL DISTRICT 818 48 17.0 2603000 HOT SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 3,401 1,518 2.2 Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 38 3804000 HOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT 992 183 5.4 6202000 HUGHES SCHOOL DISTRICT 781 147 5.3 0105000 HUMPHREY SCHOOL DISTRICT 286 84 3.4 4401000 HUNTSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,085 52 40.1 7002000 HUTTIG SCHOOL DISTRICT 231 98 2.4 3306000 IZARD CO. CONS. SCHOOL DIST. 492 115 4.3 3405000 JACKSON CO. SCHOOL DISTRICT 622 92 6.8 5102000 JASPER SCHOOL DISTRICT 526 63 8.3 2604000 JESSIEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 747 152 4.9 1608000 JONESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT 4,753 1,233 3.9 7003000 JUNCTION CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 639 25 25.6 1301000 KINGSLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 299 162 1.8 4402000 KINGSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 230 38 6.1 5503000 KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT 417 55 7.6 2605000 LAKE HAMILTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 3,773 486 7.8 5405000 LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 157 54 2.9 0903000 LAKESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 981 317 3.1 2606000 LAKESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,517 716 3.5 3604000 LAMAR SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,131 370 3.1 6605000 LAVACA SCHOOL DISTRICT 846 2 423.0 0506000 LEAD HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT 402 0 402.0 3904000 LEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,622 738 2.2 6501000 LESLIE SCHOOL DISTRICT 236 86 2.7 3702000 LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 493 127 3.9 7205000 LINCOLN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,091 344 3.2 6001000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 24,501 7,288 3.4 6704000 LOCKESBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT 393 76 5.2 4301000 LONOKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,763 454 3.9 3805000 LYNN SCHOOL DISTRICT 211 77 2.7 4202000 MAGAZINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 531 160 3.3 3003000 MAGNET COVE SCHOOL DIST. 814 191 4.3 1402000 MAGNOLIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,771 428 6.5 3004000 MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,200 365 6.0 2501000 MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DIST. 411 81 5.1 4712000 MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,004 182 5.5 6606000 MANSFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,019 7 145.6 1804000 MARION SCHOOL DISTRICT 3,296 499 6.6 5604000 MARKED TREE SCHOOL DISTRICT 725 0 725.0 2803000 MARMADUKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 764 201 3.8 6502000 MARSHALL SCHOOL DISTRICT 713 257 2.8 5404000 MARVELL SCHOOL DISTRICT 670 119 5.6 2305000 MAYFLOWER SCHOOL DISTRICT 888 273 3.3 6102000 MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 524 25 21.0 7403000 MCCRORY SCHOOL DISTRICT 669 114 5.9 2105000 MCGEHEE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,133 339 3.3 1403000 MCNEIL SCHOOL DISTRICT 291 102 2.9 7308000 MCRAE SCHOOL DISTRICT 318 105 3.0 3302000 MELBOURNE SCHOOL DISTRICT 558 117 4.8 5703000 MENA SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,886 91 20.7 3211000 MIDLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 571 0 571.0 Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 39 3104000 MINERAL SPRINGS SCHOOL DIST. 507 113 4.5 2203000 MONTICELLO SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,102 410 5.1 7005000 MOUNT HOLLY SCHOOL DISTRICT 193 42 4.6 4902000 MOUNT IDA SCHOOL DISTRICT 569 148 3.8 5103000 MOUNT JUDEA SCHOOL DISTRICT 235 79 3.0 3303000 MOUNT PLEASANT SCHOOL DISTRICT 310 76 4.1 0303000 MOUNTAIN HOME SCHOOL DISTRICT 3,786 1,164 3.3 2607000 MOUNTAIN PINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 692 307 2.3 6901000 MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,226 128 9.6 1703000 MOUNTAINBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT 753 47 16.0 2306000 MT. VERNON/ENOLA SCHOOL DIST. 449 139 3.2 1704000 MULBERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT 378 1 378.0 5504000 MURFREESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT 524 104 5.0 6002000 N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,621 1,743 4.9 3105000 NASHVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,757 157 11.2 1503000 NEMO VISTA SCHOOL DISTRICT 435 117 3.7 1611000 NETTLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,623 355 7.4 5008000 NEVADA SCHOOL DISTRICT 454 2 227.0 3206000 NEWARK SCHOOL DISTRICT 499 156 3.2 3403000 NEWPORT SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,625 567 2.9 0304000 NORFORK SCHOOL DISTRICT 463 127 3.6 7006000 NORPHLET SCHOOL DISTRICT 530 4 132.5 3605000 OARK SCHOOL DISTRICT 161 30 5.4 4904000 ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 227 50 4.5 7507000 OLA SCHOOL DISTRICT 550 197 2.8 0504000 OMAHA SCHOOL DISTRICT 395 129 3.1 4713000 OSCEOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,718 593 2.9 3005000 OUACHITA SCHOOL DISTRICT 393 62 6.3 2404000 OZARK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,633 255 6.4 6205000 PALESTINE-WHEATLEY SCH. DIST. 713 58 12.3 7309000 PANGBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 737 135 5.5 2808000 PARAGOULD SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,651 737 3.6 4203000 PARIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,151 271 4.2 7007000 PARKERS CHAPEL SCHOOL DIST. 707 169 4.2 1903000 PARKIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 392 5 78.4 6306000 PARON SCHOOL DISTIRCT 259 8 32.4 0407000 PEA RIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,179 165 7.1 5302000 PERRY-CASA SCHOOL DISTRICT 114 51 2.2 5303000 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 914 47 19.4 1104000 PIGGOTT SCHOOL DISTRICT 979 225 4.4 3505000 PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT 6,229 746 8.3 7508000 PLAINVIEW-ROVER SCHOOL DIST. 294 85 3.5 2405000 PLEASANT VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 227 84 2.7 6103000 POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,771 314 5.6 5804000 POTTSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,134 280 4.1 2703000 POYEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 509 115 4.4 7206000 PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,379 107 12.9 5006000 PRESCOTT SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,077 411 2.6 6003000 PULASKI CO. SPEC. SCHOOL DIST. 17,938 3,753 4.8 1203000 QUITMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 597 81 7.4 Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 40 6104000 RANDOLPH COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 270 42 6.4 1106000 RECTOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 687 106 6.5 1303000 RISON SCHOOL DISTRICT 633 136 4.7 3807000 RIVER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 333 97 3.4 1613000 RIVERSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 798 160 5.0 7307000 RIVERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,245 250 5.0 0405000 ROGERS SCHOOL DISTRICT 11,852 2,149 5.5 7310000 ROSE BUD SCHOOL DISTRICT 833 133 6.3 6904000 RURAL SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 209 86 2.4 5805000 RUSSELLVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 5,179 785 6.6 2502000 SALEM SCHOOL DISTRICT 735 140 5.3 2905000 SARATOGA SCHOOL DISTRICT 180 0 180.0 7103000 SCOTLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 124 21 5.9 4204000 SCRANTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 402 97 4.1 7311000 SEARCY SCHOOL DISTRICT 3,666 659 5.6 2705000 SHERIDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 4,099 579 7.1 7104000 SHIRLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 526 117 4.5 0406000 SILOAM SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,972 171 17.4 3806000 SLOAN-HENDRIX SCHOOL DIST. 557 111 5.0 7008000 SMACKOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT 705 240 2.9 1507000 SO. CONWAY CO. SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,406 258 9.3 4706000 SO. MISS. COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 1,454 285 5.1 7105000 SOUTH SIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 507 127 4.0 3209000 SOUTHSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,398 243 5.8 2003000 SPARKMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 289 78 3.7 2906000 SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT 513 154 3.3 7207000 SPRINGDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT 12,839 2,893 4.4 6503000 ST. JOE SCHOOL DISTRICT 223 72 3.1 4403000 ST. PAUL SCHOOL DISTRICT 331 88 3.8 3703000 STAMPS SCHOOL DISTRICT 611 141 4.3 4003000 STAR CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,520 50 30.4 5206000 STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT 359 111 3.2 6902000 STONE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 294 110 2.7 7009000 STRONG SCHOOL DISTRICT 468 113 4.1 0104000 STUTTGART SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,868 487 3.8 3210000 SULPHUR ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 345 82 4.2 3404000 SWIFTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 269 16 16.8 1404000 TAYLOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 293 92 3.2 4605000 TEXARKANA SCHOOL DISTRICT 4,592 1,485 3.1 5605000 TRUMANN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,723 309 5.6 1805000 TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT 396 81 4.9 3106000 UMPIRE SCHOOL DISTRICT 95 43 2.2 7011000 UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 343 3 114.3 0505000 VALLEY SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 918 105 8.7 1612000 VALLEY VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,430 4 357.5 1705000 VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT 5,505 876 6.3 5704000 VAN COVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 391 69 5.7 2307000 VILONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,588 304 8.5 2503000 VIOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT 460 79 5.8 1406000 WALDO SCHOOL DISTRICT 386 138 2.8 Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 41 6401000 WALDRON SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,658 281 5.9 1407000 WALKER SCHOOL DISTRICT 203 3 67.7 3808000 WALNUT RIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT 760 122 6.2 0602000 WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,571 346 4.5 3509000 WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT 3,195 340 9.4 5607000 WEINER SCHOOL DISTRICT 372 107 3.5 7208000 WEST FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,120 241 4.6 1803000 WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 6,069 1,198 5.1 1204000 WEST SIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 531 87 6.1 5104000 WESTERN GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 277 35 7.9 7509000 WESTERN YELL CO. SCHOOL DIST. 424 72 5.9 1602000 WESTSIDE CONS. SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,659 179 9.3 3606000 WESTSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 634 92 6.9 7304000 WHITE CO. CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. 656 25 26.2 3510000 WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT 3,073 343 9.0 5705000 WICKES SCHOOL DISTRICT 532 179 3.0 1205000 WILBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 176 4 44.0 6805000 WILLIFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT 263 83 3.2 7209000 WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT 258 0 258.0 6504000 WITTS SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 71 57 1.2 1505000 WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 471 110 4.3 1304000 WOODLAWN SCHOOL DISTRICT 601 172 3.5 1905000 WYNNE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,843 760 3.7 4502000 YELLVILLE-SUMMIT SCHOOL DIST. 1,021 263 3.9 Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 42 APPENDIX C - Evaluation Chart Sample EVALUATION CHART Performance Goal 1: Student achievement, including technology literacy, of all students is improved through the use of technology Performance Indicator 1.1 The percentage of students by end of grade 8 that meet or exceed state guidelines for student literacy in technology. (The State Board of Education has adopted the ISTE Student Technology Standards.) Performance Target 1.1 The percentage of students by end of grade 8 that meet or exceed state guidelines for student literacy in technology will increase from a baseline of <TBD>% in <insert baseline school year>, to <insert number>% in <insert school year>, to <insert number>% in <insert school year>. Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Performance Indicator 1.2 The average daily attendance at all schools in the district Performance Target 1.2 The average daily attendance at all schools in the district will improve from the baseline year (to be determined) <insert number> in 2001-2002 to <insert number> in 2002-2003, to <insert number> schools in 2003-2004. Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Performance Indicator 1.3 – 1.6 The district dropout rate will decrease. District discipline referrals, suspensions, and expulsions will decrease Course offerings in computer education will increase. Advanced Placement course offerings will increase. Performance Target 1.3 Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 43 Performance Goal 2: Teachers effectively use technology and research-based practices to support student learning Performance Indicator 2.1 The percentage of teachers qualified to use technology for instruction. Performance Target 2.1 The percentage of teachers who are qualified to use technology for instruction will increase from the baseline of <insert number>% in 2003-2004, to <insert number>% in 2004-2005, to <insert number>% in 2005-2006 Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Performance Indicator 2.2 Teacher attrition rates Number of teachers obtaining more than the six required clock hours in educational technology. Performance Target 2.2 Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 44 Performance Goal 3: Technology is integrated throughout the curriculum Performance Indicator 3.1 The number of schools in which all students are able to work from a networked computer. Performance Target 3.1 The number of schools in which all students are able to work from a networked computers will increase from the baseline of <TBD> in <insert baseline school year>, to <insert number> in <insert school year>, to <insert number> in <insert school year>. Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Performance Indicator 3.2 Percent of students who use software packages including, productivity packages, virus protection, and software that promotes open-ended reasoning and higher-order thinking skills. Percent of students, teachers, and parents who use technology as a communication tool linking school, family, and community Percent of students who use online database and encyclopedia resources as a component of learning activities Performance Target 3.2 Describe data source, collection method, and timeline for collecting data on above target: Resources: An Educator’s Guide for Evaluating the Use of Technology in Schools and Classrooms, 1998; South Carolina Department of Education, Mississippi Department of Education, & Louisiana Department of Education, Competitive Applications Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 45 Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 46 Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant 47