Smarter Balanced - System Requirements

7/30/2019 Smarter Balanced - System Requirements

1/30

The Smarter Balanced Technology Strategy Framework and

System Requirements Specifcations


2/30


3/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY

FRAMEWORK PREPARED BY

NAVIGATION NORTH LEARNING

i i

The Smarter Balanced Technology Strategy Frameworkand System Requirements Specifcations

The Smarter Balanced Technology

Strategy Framework and SystemRequirements Specifcations

Smarter Balanced Assessment ConsortiumSmarter Balanced is a state-led consortium developing assessmentsaligned to the Common Core State Standards in English language arts/literacy and mathematics that are designed to help prepare all studentsto graduate high school college- and career-ready.

IntroductionThis report presents a ramework or collective technology planningamong the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium member states.The plan emphasizes the critical need or technology to support studentlearning with the Smarter Balanced Assessment System minimumrequirements as context and milestones. The minimum requirements arebased on expert judgments regarding instructional technology, districtinterviews, input and eedback rom various national experts, speci cguidance and direction rom the Smarter Balanced executive team and

the Technology Approach Work Group, and an independent review o datacollected rom the Smar ter Balanced Technology Readiness Tool.

These data and reviews indicate that the administration o onlineadaptive assessments, similar to those administered in a number o Smarter Balanced states at this time, can largely be executed with thehardware and in rastructure that exists in schools today. Key strategies

or success ul implementation o the Smarter Balanced AssessmentSystem will include:

Implementing strategic approaches to testing schedules that

leverage the testing window. Evaluating and addressing any problems with actual bandwidth

levels at a given school site (i.e. the pipeline throughout theschool, not just the bandwidth to the school).

Ensuring continual basic maintenance and upkeep o existing assets.


4/30

iv

This report describes two levels o hardware speci cations: minimumspeci cations and recommended guidelines. A school that implements only the minimum speci cations (e.g., bandwidth and computers) will be able toimplement the Smarter Balanced Assessment System success ully, but theindividual testing experience or any particular student may have periods o slowness during which the computer experiences brie moments o data lagor delay, which will not disable the exam, but will merely result in the systemtaking a ew additional seconds to capture student responses and render thenext question or item. In addition, some students with special needs may not beable to use computers that meet only the minimum speci cations. Students inschools that implement the Smarter Balanced Assessment System in a mannerconsistent with the recommended guidelines will tend to experience ew, i any,periods o slowness as described and will have a more fuid testing experience.

Smarter Balanced intends or there to be at least two methods by which statesare able to implement the Smarter Balanced Assessment System.

1 ) States will be able to administer the Smar ter Balanced Assessment Systemusing the Smarter Balanceddeveloped applications by procuring hosting andhelpdesk services.

2 ) States will be able to procure Smarter Balancedcerti ed comparable testadministration plat orms as well as hosting and help desk services. Smarter

Balanceds Architecture Review Board is considering methods to establishcomparability among test administration plat orms.

Although comparable approaches to administering the Smarter BalancedAssessment System are likely to have similar requirements to the SmarterBalanceddeveloped applications, this document only describes therequirements to use the Smarter Balanceddeveloped applications.

Two additional actors should be considered when reviewing this document:

1 ) The speci cations described in this document are minimum speci cationsnecessary or the Smarter Balanced assessment only. Minimum

speci cations to support instruction and other more media-heavy applicationsare higher than those necessary or the assessment.

2 ) The Smar ter Balanced minimum speci cations or assessment weredeliberately established as a low entry point to help ensure that technology-purchasing decisions are made based on instructional plans and to increasethe likelihood that schools will success ully engage in online testing.


5/30


6/30


7/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



1


I. Overview o the Smarter Balanced

Technology Strategy FrameworkBy 201415, most students in public schools will engage with a variety o computer-based instructional modules and/or computer-basedassessments. The rationale or this trend is well described in the U.S.Department o Educations regulations regarding the Race to the TopAssessment Program:

States need assessment systems that better re ect good instructional practices and support a culture o continuous improvement in education by providing in ormationthat can be used in a timely and meaning ul manner to determine school and educatore ectiveness, identi y teacher and principal pro essional development and support needs,improve programs, and guide instruction.

Overview In ormation; Race to the Top Fund Assessment Program, USDOE Federal Register,Vol. 75, No. 68 (http://www.gpo.gov/ dsys/pkg/FR-2010-04-09/pd /2010-8176.pd )

As a continuing part o their local e orts to better serve their studentsand as participants in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium,schools, districts, and states are evaluating the capacity o their schools

through surveys o existing technical in rastructure and devices andpotential uture purchasing trends. These data are being used to derivestrategies in response to the desire to move national assessmentinstruments, processes, and data aggregation and reporting into thedigital age.

Implementing a watershed change in the use o educational technology by 201415 is made more complex by the growing shi t in computing device

orm actors, which will inevitably involve one o the largest hardware/so tware migrations encountered within education over the last 25 years.During this transitional period, districts will rely heavily upon the traditionaldesktops and laptops that all educational institutions have used as thecore ramework or their technical ecosystems, while simultaneously testing and planning or more mobile data- and network-enabled devices(tablets, e-readers, smartphones, etc.) that have penetrated the consumermarkets and the lives o students and teachers.


8/30

2

Despite signi cant challenges, there is a clear opportunity or dramaticsuccess. By developing a common assessment with common technology requirements, states and districts create a roadmap or the requirementso the uture. In addition, the diversity o device types that are availableprovides districts with a range o options that can best address theirspeci c program needs. Finally, there are many states that can serve asexemplars o success regarding online assessment, online instruction,and technology planning. By combining the expertise o these states,the best elements o existing programs and descriptions o educationaltechnology best practices can be identi ed.

As such, this document is intended to be a living document that provides

districts with basic in ormation that is necessary to assist them in theirplans or the continued use o legacy systems as instructional resourcesand as delivery devices or online assessments. Many districts will,by design or by need, have to consider the implementation o changesto their systems o in ormation technology. This may include someelements o new hardware in the orm o desktops, laptops, and thinclients, as well as devices less amiliar to district IT support personnel,including mobile devices such as tablets. Changes in devices may require subsequent changes to networks such as including new wirelessnetworks or upgrading existing wireless networks. Many districts will haveto establish new policies to address the new technologies such as 1:1initiatives, processes or checking computers out through the schoolslibrary/media center, moving devices rom class to class in a cart, andthe use o student-owned/-managed devices.

Districts will be asked on various levels to explain the impetus orchanges to their local technology plans and the reasons behind them.Whether working with individual schools and the instructional sta orcommunicating with their local stakeholder organizations and community,this document will also assist districts in better articulating that thenational programs and local strategies require di erent technologies to

yield the ull anticipated bene ts o teaching and learning improvements.


9/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



3


Defning Learning AnalyticsLearning analytics loosely

joins a variety o data-

gathering tools and analytictechniques to study student engagement, per ormance,and progress in practice,

with the goal o using what is learned to revisecurricula, teaching, andassessment in real timeAkey application o learning analytics is monitoring andpredicting students learning per ormance and spotting potential issues early so

that interventions can beprovided to identi y studentsat risk o ailing a course orprogram o study.

Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis,H., Levine, A., and Haywood, K.,(2011). The 2011 HorizonReport. Austin, Texas:The New Media Consortium.

These advantages include:

Timely Data: Immediate access to individual studentper ormance data to help educators more readily know wherestudents are on a given continuum o skills can better supportthe instructional planning processes.

Individualized, Accurate Assessment: Districts teachersand instructional leaders can deliver speci c computer-

adaptive interim and summative assessments tailored tothe needs o various students. As students encounterassessments that actively calibrate per ormance item-by-item, a more precise pathway is generated to understandstudents levels o pro ciency and to better identi y the

speci c individual skills they possess as well as the gapsthat persist in their per ormance over time. The adaptive

nature o this test is particularly suited to addressing thespecial needs o some learners with speci c adaptations tailoredto their unique designations.

Accessible Reports: Structured and adaptable in ormation onstudent achievement across grades and subject areas enablesteachers, administrators, and district leaders to have ocused,

data-supported dialogue on students needs to better articulatesupport, communication, and budgets around those needs.

Increased E fciency and Security: There will be a signi cantly reduced need to produce and physically secure, transport, anddisseminate hard-copy assessments and to require constant andscrupulous monitoring o millions o paper items across districtsand states.

States that use computer-based assessments typically have morecapacity in the orm o data structures to quickly pinpoint student

progress toward learning outcomes. The strategic type o LearningAnalytics that can be generated rom these data structures increasesschools and districts capacity to convert the data into in ormation thatcan in orm the instructional analysis and planning cycle. Interventionplans or students not meeting achievement expectations can betargeted and speci c to precise skill gaps. Finally, computer-basedassessments are more conducive to identi ying success ul programsthat can be replicated.


10/30

4

With a robust technology system that supports computer-basedinstruction and assessment, the understanding o student needsallows educators to more quickly identi y gaps in e ective instructionalcontent and address those gaps by procuring a diversity o materialsaligned to the Common Core State Standards as to share success ulinstructional strategies that leverage those materials. Policymakersat district and state levels can make in ormed decisions about thestrategic allocation o resources by analyzing where investments havegenerated results, and the degree to which students are experiencingsimilar success consistently across schools and districts.

The in ormation provided herein is a compilation o data, research,

general orm- actor speci cations, and eld-based analysis generatedthrough a broad spectrum o input, recommendations, and interviews.The intent o this material is to assist districts within Smarter Balancedin creating a orward-looking vision and related strategies or theimplementation o next-generation assessments that accurately measure student progress toward college- and career-readiness asaligned to the Common Core State Standards by 201415.

As a lead-in point, it is important to note that a common themeresonated across numerous direct interviews and inquiries with statedepartment-level personnel and district technology and assessment

coordinators directly involved with administering online computer-adaptive tests; these tests save time and money, and teachers arevehement that the tests have helped them to better understand theirstudents needs. They are able to have better conversations aboutstudents and learning, and they would be averse to returning to theirtraditional assessment methods.

Based on the general research and data reviews conducted or thedevelopment o these guidelines, we believe that most districts will

nd much o their existing in rastructure and device inventory will serveto administer the online assessments. By all estimations at this time,the need or states and districts to secure large volumes o hardwareand in rastructure purchases between now and the 201415 schoolyear is not consistent with the implementation data available. Wherepurchasing considerations are necessary, the in ormation within thisdocument will assist in early thinking and considerations or districtsand schools.

When considering the transitionto online tests, I would want other districts in other statesto emphasize money, resource and time savings; ease o exam organization and administration; and immediate eedback, as direct benefts toteachers and students.

Oregon School DistrictAdministrator o Technology and Assessment


11/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



5


* Technical trends dataare largely drawn rom A Summary Report orthe July 15, 2012 Data

Snapshot as preparedby Pearson or SmarterBalanced and PARCC.

II. Summary o Statewide Technology

Readiness Survey*School Systems Trends Nationally

Common survey data rom United States schools continues to illuminatean array o existing hardware/so tware deployed across myriad networksand in rastructures. However, even with this seemingly diverse tapestry,certain trends or con guration patterns sur ace in terms o howK-12 provisioning o hardware, operating systems, and network datain rastructures have been designed over the past decade.

Hardware: Primarily Windows-based desktops and laptops

Operating Systems: Primarily Windows XP or 7

Productivity So tware: Microso t O ce Suite (20032010)

Network Data Bandwidth: (incoming/internal):10 Mbps/10100 Mbps

To rely exclusively on this majority pro le would misrepresent thewhole picture; however, as there are signi cant numbers o schools in allstates running everything rom Mac OS 10.3 on clamshell-style iBooksto new tablets running Androids Ice Cream Sandwich.

There ore, this document will examine a number o these data, asrelated to the trends that have sur aced across the nation, and ask thatdistricts then consider this global in ormation prior to distilling it to amore speci c study o their own technology readiness or implementationo the online computer-adaptive assessments to be executed in the201415 school year.


12/30

6

As shown above, the data set or assertions made within thisdocument is derived rom a large device count. While somediscrepancies can be ound in the more granular in ormation collected

rom states, in terms o non-responses and culling o ederal data inplace o a direct, current accounting or some items, the overall trendspresented are valid and persistent across states due to the overall sizeo the sample.

As such, i we can assume that the 30.3% o devices that wentunidenti ed (primarily due to two states ailure to report in ormationon device type) were to ollow the desktop/laptop-to-mobile device ratioestablished by those states that did report device type, approximately 85% o the computing devices in districts are desktops or laptopsand 15% are mobile devices.

Operating System Trends in U.S. K-12 Schools

District Takeaway #1: Plan to migrate rom Windows XPto newer OS within two years o Microso ts support enddate o April, 2014.

While the online assessment will be able to run on WindowsXP in 201415, districts are strongly urged to considera transition plan to migrate units o o Windows XP, asit will be a non-supported OS by April o 2014 according toMicroso t. At this time, Windows 7 is a pre erred destinationOS. Windows 8 has not been ully tested, but is anticipated as anacceptable OS or Smarter Balanced assessments in coming years.Please note that this is only a recommendation; Windows XP willcontinue to be a viable OS to execute the assessment solution packagebeyond Microso ts support end date, and many districts will still haveother programs that are dependent on XP in various instances.

Operating Systems Deployment The graph above showscurrent operating systemsusage. Districts are strongly urged to consider a transitionplan to migrate unitso o Windows XP.

Other

5.5%iOS

2.3%

Mac OS X

9.2%

Windows 7

26.9%

The preferred destination OS

Windows XP

56.1%

Overview o Report Data

Total Device Counts in Repor t: 5,977,387

Total District Counts in Repor t: 11,789

Total School Counts in Repor t: 56,268

Type o Site-Based Devices in General

59.6% o devices are desktops/laptops

10.1% are netbooks, tablets, or othermobile-type units

30.3% o devices in count were not specifed by type.


13/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



7


Internal Memory The graph above showscurrent internal memory usage. Districts shouldupgrade computers toat least 1 GB o internalmemory.

Screen Resolution and Screen Size TrendsThe graphs on the le t show current screen resolution andscreen sizes. Districts planning to use tablets should considerhaving external plug and play external keyboards or studentsneeding to maximize viewing space on their devices.

Internal Memory Trends in U.S. K-12 Schools

District Takeaway #2: all districts should upgrade computers toat least 1 GB o internal memory.

It is anticipated through projecting the trends seen above that themajority o the unreported numbers would most likely end up coming inat 1 GB or more in internal memory. New purchase guidelines call or atleast 1 GB and in terms o upgrading older machines, internal memory isone o the least expensive and easiest upgrades to conduct.

It is important to note that computers meeting the minimum requiredoperating systems, with ample bandwidth, can and will be largely

marginalized in their overall per ormance i enough internal memory is not accessible to run browsers simultaneously with other coreoperations on a given unit. And, given the relatively low-costs orupgrading memories as stated above, it is recommended that districtsper orm such upgrades as a means to enable more units or e ectiveassessment use.

Screen Resolution and Screen Size Trendsin U.S. K-12 Schools

District Takeaway #3: Ensure that devices have a visual display o

no less than 9.5-inch screen dimension (10-inch class) supportingat least 1024x768 resolution.

While it was reported across multiple states and districts that 89.5-inch screen dimensions supported the online assessment solution, 9.5inches is the pre erred width. Additionally, while many tablet screen sizesalign with these dimensions, districts will need to consider the amounto visual space the virtual on-screen keyboards consume when utilizedas the primary input method. Districts planning to use tablets shouldconsider having external plug and play keyboards or students needingto maximize viewing space on their devices.

Unreported27%

Less than1GB

10%

1 GB or More63%

Unreported8.7%

Does Not Meet Guidelines3.3%

Meets or ExceedsScreen Resolution

Guidelines88%

Unreported

8.3%

Does Not Meet Guidelines1.8%

Meets or ExceedsScreen SizeGuidelines

89.9%


14/30

8

Internet Browser Trends in U.S. K-12 Schools

District Takeaway #4: The student testing site ultimatelyoperates on secure browsers.

While various components o the online assessment package(such as the test administrator live site, training site, and theonline student practice tests) are executed on various webbrowser/OS con gurations, the actual student testing sitecan only be operated on a series o secure browsers asgenerated by the Smarter Balanced solution or variousoperating systems. (An example o the AIRs existing secure browser download inter ace is below.)

In general, various versions o Internet Explorer, Sa ari, and Fire ox aresupported on the non-student assessment tools online. A ull table o browser and OS compatibility speci cations will be made available inSection III o this document or accessing those other, various parts o the assessment bundle.

Secure Internet BrowsersThe graph above showscurrent Internet browser

usage. Districts should planto download the latest securebrowser rom the AIR website.

InternetExplorer 7

7.4%

InternetExplorer 9

9.9%

Firefox 4+10%

Internet Explorer 828.1%

No Response32%

Safari7.3%

Google Chrome3.1%

Other2.2%


15/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



9


American Institute or ResearchThe American Institute orResearch (AIR) has receivedthe Smarter Balancedcontract to develop theonline adaptive assessment component. The ollowing in ormation is a compilationo materials and in ormationpublished courtesy o AIRand can be used as general,preliminary assertions orbandwidth calculations.

Internet Connection and Internal Bandwidth Trends in

U.S. K-12 SchoolsDistrict Takeaway #5: Once the assessment is running,estimates show it draws approximately 510 Kbps per student

or most current testing.

These tests include animations, technology-enhanced items, and otherstate-o -the-art unctionality.

The actual bandwidth demands will depend on the media included in theSmarter Balanced tests. For example, one English language pro ciency test includes recorded audio and a speaking component, which capturesoratory responses. This type o media can increase the bandwidth. Wecurrently estimate that the Smarter Balanced assessment will require1020 Kbps per student or less.

For basic calculations, consider the typical bandwidth draw o 10 Kbps

and multiply by number o students or an estimate o bandwidth needsto deliver the assessment in its most intensive iteration. There ore, 100students assessing simultaneously could draw up to 1,000 Kbps(1 Mbps) as a reasonable estimate.

Site Internet Connection*In addition to the graphs

connectivity data, schoolsinternal network bandwidthis largely reported at 100Mbps to 1 Gbps (90% o responding sites).

10 Mbps(Ethernet)

23%

1 Gbps(Gigabit Ethernet)

15%

< 2 Mbps(ADSL/

T1/DS1)

9%

44 Mbps(T1/DS3)

8%

622 Mbps (OC12): 1%

600 Mbps (Wireless 802.11n : 1%

155 Mbps

(OC3) : 3%

11 Mbps (Wireless 802.11b)

2%

54 Mbps (Wireless 802.11g) : 2%

Greater than2.5 Gbps: 1%

100 Mbps(Fast Ethernet)

35%


16/30

10

I districts base their general calculations or every 100 students as amultiple o 1 Mbps to predict the highest estimated bandwidth needs

or the most network-intensive parts o the test, they can createbasic, peak requirement calculations.

O course, it is important to note that all districts will ultimately want to make use o the network diagnostic assessment tools thatwill be developed to nalize local testing and calibrate de nitive loadspeci cations or each school site and devices therein, particularlywhen the school is in session and drawing bandwidth to other, dailynetwork and data-intensive operations on campus.

For wireless access, connections using an 802.11g access point canreliably support a maximum o 20 PC and/or Mac workstations that usewireless cards with either the 802.11g or the 802.11n standard. I your

access point is 802.11n, and the devices are equipped with 802.11ncards, then up to 40 units can be supported over wireless givenappropriate network connectivity.

(All estimates are dependent on ample bandwidth coming tothe site and/or to the wireless access unit or distribution outto testing devices.)

800 Students= 8 Mbps400 Students

= 4 Mbps200 Students= 2 Mbps

Only 9% of responding sitesreported connectivity under2 Mbps nationally.

Bandwidth NoteSites with lower bandwidth(such as those still operating on T1 connections) canstill deliver the assessment e ectively, but will experiencesome latency in data trans er.


17/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



11


III. Overview o the Smarter Balanced

Assessment System ImplementationSmarter Balanceds online assessment solution will use a standards-based computer-adaptive testing system in which items are selectedto a) ensure that every student is tested on the ull breadth anddepth o content and b) provide each student with items that are bothaccessible and challenging. All public- acing components o the systemare accessible via an online remote portal and can be accessed by avariety o common web browsers or the administrative and diagnosticresources, while the actual student test itsel is accessible online viaa secure browser released or supported operating systems. Access tovarious applications is dependent on user roles, which will be de ned by the Consortium. The Smarter Balanced assessment is a ully enabled,web-based application and requires no local hosting, caching, or servers.

Current versions o the online assessment solution are made up o the ollowing primary components: Test In ormation Distribution Engine,Training Site, Student Practice Tests, and Operational Testing Sites.

Data Reporting Facets and Dashboards

Wireless Generation has been identi ed as the Smarter Balanced vendoror data-aggregation and reporting systems and eatures. While they are

just now beginning their initial steps in analyzing the repor ting needso Smarter Balanced districts and schools, initial recommendations orbrowsers to access data reports include Google Chrome, Sa ari on iOS(Apple devices), Fire ox, and Internet Explorer 8 and above.

Each year, Smarter Balanced anticipates releasing a new set o securebrowsers. These browsers prevent students rom accessing otherapplications and copying or creating screenshots. The browser must beinstalled on each computer used or online testing. The secure browsermust be installed on a yearly basis due to implementation o new

eatures in the test delivery system and to support operating systemupdates. The browser can be installed individually on each computer ordeployed to all computers through a distributed, remote administrativeprocess across multiple computers on a schools network.

In our state, we were planning to phase incomputer-based, onlinetesting with AIR starting in 2008 with an anticipated ull implementation to occurover a 3 year cycle, but whenwe encountered signifcant budget constraints in 09-10, we opted to implement the online assessments as areplacement to our existing paper/pencil programs as acost-savings decision. Despitethat some allocations had to be made to increase our device numbers in certain schools, we were ultimately able to signifcantly decreaseour overall assessment administration budget and had a raction o the security

incidents we previously had toinvestigate and document.

State Dept. o Education Technology & AssessmentPersonnel


18/30

12

Secure browsers are necessary or delivery and access o the studentassessments exclusively. However, all o the other components o the assessment package, including the Test Administration Tools, theStudent Practice Tests, and the Test Administrator Inter ace, are acetsthat can be accessed by standard web browsers.

Secure Browser Specifcations

Secure browsers are released annually or the student summativeassessment in order to create a simple, secure inter ace or studentsto access only the test without any other online-enabled utility. With thesecure browsers, students may only access the exam.

To deliver a secure summative assessment, the desktop needs tobe restricted. This prevents students rom accessing resources thatcompromise assessment results and otherwise allow students tobreach the security o the assessment. To protect computers rommalicious websites, browsers block access to operating system

unctions and do not generally allow server-side commands to controlthe computer. For example, without modi cation, o -the-shel webbrowsers generally do not know i there are other programs running inthe background (e.g., a recording program that might take pictures o the assessment items or record students keystrokes). In contrast, the

secure browser must monitor other activity on the computer and stoptesting i any other programs run that may compromise the security o the test.

Although Smarter Balanced will continue to investigate the option o providing access to the assessment through server-based applets orcommands, it is likely that secure browsers will continue to be required

or at least the rst two years o the operational assessment or mostoperating systems.


19/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



13


Operating System Operating System Version Secure Browser

Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8Windows Server 2003and 2008

Windows Secure Browser asreleased prior to school start

Mac OS X 10.4.4, 10.5 with PowerPC Mac Secure Browser asreleased prior to school start

Mac OS X with Intel 10.4.4, 10.5, 10.6,10.7, 10.8

Mac Secure Browser asreleased prior to school start

Linux Fedora 6 (K12LTSP 4.2+)Ubuntu 9-12

Linux Secure Browser asreleased prior to school start

To Be Developed or Tablet Form Factors:

iOS iOS6 iOS Secure Browser asreleased prior to school start

Android Android 4.0 Android Secure Browser asreleased prior to school start

Windows Windows 8 Windows 8 Secure Browseras released prior to schoolstart

Chrome OS Chrome OS (v19) Chrome will use the nativebrowser, and students willlog onto an AIR domain tosecure the system.

Smarter Balanced will release securebrowsers or iOS6, Android 4.0, andChrome OS; and these systems willbe acceptable as testing devices by the 201415 implementation.


20/30

14

When administering the operational studenttest, the numbers o students that cansimultaneously access and complete theassessment depends upon numbers o available devices and both the Internetconnectivity and the internal networkscapacity to distribute the incoming bandwidthdelivered by that connectivity. Additionally, the sizeo the test itsel and the size o each item asmeasured by bits o data per second can

actor into delivery scenarios.

In preliminary interviews with both AIRand various districts administering the AIRsolution it has been reported that its currentstates administer tests that can render within an average 510 Kbpsper student bandwidth threshold. Additionally, all districts interviewedoperated with an 8:1 to 11:1 student-to-computer ratio and were ableto manage processing all students in a three-to- our-week assessmentwindow. Smarter Balanceds assessment will render between 1020Kbps depending on whether or not a student is presented with amultimedia-based item. Smarter Balanced has reported its supporto a twelve-week administration window to administer assessmentcomponents. There ore, given data solicited or this report, districtsshould be able to accommodate even large-scale administrations by cycling rotations o grade-level assessment groups over time.

IV. Hardware and So tware RequirementsOverviewBasic hardware and operating system requirements developed by AIR

or the Smarter Balanced assessment solution work to include a broadrange o legacy systems and devices so that schools and districts canmake use o many, i not most, o their existing investments.

Detailed in ormation will be published by AIR as Smarter Balancednalizes the test design and speci cations. The chart below

summarizes hardware and so tware speci cations or both existing andnew systems and can give districts a preliminary idea about their ownlocal implementation planning or desktops/laptops/tablets.

Numberof TestingDevices

IncomingInternet

Connectivity

InternalNetwork

Bandwidth

Number of Students

SimultaneouslyTesting

Size andNumber of Test Items


21/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



15


Operating System Minimum Smarter BalancedRequirements or CurrentComputers 123

Recommended SmarterBalanced Minimum

or New Purchases

Windows Windows XP (service pack 3)Pentium 233 MHz processor128 MB RAM52 MB hard drive ree space

Windows 7+1GHz processor1GB RAM80 GB hard drive

Mac OS X Mac OS X 10.4.4Macintosh computer withIntel x86 or PowerPC G3(300 MHz) processor,256 MB RAM, 200 MBhard drive ree space

Mac OS X 10.7+1 GHz processor1GB RAM80 GB hard drive

Linux Linux(Ubuntu 9-10, Fedora 6)Pentium II or AMD K6-III233 MHz processor64 MB RAM52 MB hard drive ree space

Linux(Ubuntu 11.10, Fedora 16)1 GHz processor1GB RAM80 GB hard drive

iOS iPads 2 and 3 running iOS6 iPads running iOS6

Android Android-based tabletsrunning Android 4.0+

Android-based tabletsrunning Android 4.0+

Windows

Windows-based tabletsrunning Windows 8+

Windows-based tabletsrunning Windows 8+

Chrome OS Chromebooks runningChrome OS (v19)+

Chromebooks runningChrome OS (v19)+

Minimum Computer RequirementsMinimum requirements represent a low compliance threshold. Districtsshould attempt to exceed these requirements as many machines operating at these levels could struggle with su fcient on-board memory and processing to run secure browsers as well as other simultaneous running programsaccumulated on the device over time.

1 The minimum Smarter Balanced requirements aregenerally equivalent to the minimum requirements o the associated eligible operating system. Users shouldre er to the minimum requirements o the operatingsystem as a means o resolving any ambiguities in theminimum Smarter Balanced requirements.

2 These guidelines do not supersede the minimumrequirements o the operating systems.

3 All hardware choices should consider the individualneeds o students. Some students may need hardwarethat exceeds these minimum guidelines, and somestudents may require qualitatively di erent hardware.


22/30

16

Additional Requirements Applicable Across Operating Systems:

Device Requirements Minimum Smarter BalancedRequirements or CurrentComputers

Screen Size 10 class or larger1024 x 768 resolution

Headphones/earphones Available to students or useduring the English languagearts test and or students whorequire text-to-speech eatureson the mathematics test

Security The device must have theadministrative tools andcapabilities to temporarily disable eatures, unctionalities,and applications that couldpresent a security risk duringtest administration.

Keyboards Mechanical keyboards must beavailable unless students usealternative input devices as parto their classroom instruction.

Form Factors No restriction as long as thedevice meets the other statedrequirements. These ormsinclude desktops, laptops,netbooks, virtual desktopsand thin clients 4 , tablets (iPad,Windows, Chromebooks, andAndroid), and hybrid laptop/tablets.

Network Must connect to the Internetwith approximately 1020 Kbpsavailable per student to betested simultaneously

Minimum Requirements orOther DevicesMinimum requirementsrepresent a low compliancethreshold. Ultimately, districtsshould attempt to exceedthese requirements as many machines operating at theselevels could struggle withsu fcient on-board memory and processing to run

secure browsers as well asother simultaneous running programs accumulated on thedevice over time.

4 The resources (e.g., memory andprocessors) available to eachclient need to be equivalent orgreater to the requirements orstandalone hardware.


23/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



17


PrintersTest administrators can print out test session in ormation and in certainsituations can approve student requests to print reading passages,and in very restricted circumstances print test items. It is strongly recommended however that test administrators be connected to a singlelocal or network printer in the testing room.

Headphones

The English-language arts assessments contain audio (recorded and/or computer-based read-aloud), and students must be provided withheadphones so they have the option to clearly listen to the audio in

these tests. Similarly, some students may need the support o textread-aloud by the computer as part o the mathematics assessment.In these cases, students should be provided headphones as well.Districts are encouraged to test the quality o the headphonesin advance, as many districts and schools opt to purchase airly inexpensive, bulk-type units when it comes to headphones or generalstudent use.

USB headphones are recommended, as they are typically plug-and-play devices. However, standard headphones connected via standard TRS(headphone jack) connections will su ce. Additionally, the computer-

based read-aloud accommodation requires voice packs to be preinstalledon computers that will be used or testing. For Windows and Macoperating systems, de ault voice packs are typically preinstalled. Forcomputers running Linux Fedora Core 6 (K12LTSP 4.2+) or Ubuntu912, voice packs may need to be downloaded and installed. AIR testsa number o existing Windows and Mac internal voice packs as well as anumber o ee-based external, third-party voice packs and releases a listo those best suited to the audio portions o their assessments.

It is assumed that most computers and similar devices come withrequisite sound cards, but it is important to run the sample test, studenttests, and diagnostic programs on all devices, particularly those thatwill be supporting audio in some orm. At this time, neither microphonesnor stylus devices have been identi ed as necessary input devices orthe 201415 assessment implementation. However, Smarter Balancedanticipates integrating manipulative media and interactive data elements

or students as a means to generate more authentic input capacities.


24/30


25/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



19


Based on the general research and data reviews conducted or thedevelopment o this guideline, most districts will nd that mucho their existing in rastructure and device inventory will serve toadminister the online assessments. By all estimations at this time,the ear that states and districts will be orced to make large volumeso hardware and in rastructure purchases between now and the201415 school year is not consistent with the implementation dataavailable. However, some more speci c areas will need a degreeo review and consideration based on national trends at this time.

While the Smarter Balanced assessment plans to support WindowsXP con gurations and will continue to include Windows XP in itsspeci cations moving to 2015, it is recommended that districtsconsider migrating existing devices to Windows 7 where possible.This recommendation is due to the high number o Windows-basedmachines still using XP in the K-12 environment, and the act thatMicroso t will not provide security support to this OS beyond Aprilo 2014. In general, Smarter Balanced will set a goal to support allprevalent operating systems at least two years beyond their ownli e cycle as indicated by the date in which they are removed rommainstream support by their authoring companies/agencies. The

ollowing is a table identi ying the anticipated end-o -support dates orvarious operating systems in use today.

A Reading Assessment Excerpt The screenshot on the right shows a reading assessment excerpt rom a recent AIRadaptive exam.


26/30

20

Operating System (OS) OS Release Date AnticipatedSmarter BalancedEnd o Support Date

Mac 10.4.4 January 2006 Spring 2015 5

Mac 10.5 October 2007 Spring 2017

Mac 10.6 August 2009 Spring 2019

Mac 10.7

Mac 10.8

July 2011

July 2012

Spring 2021

Spring 2022

Windows XP (SP 3) October 2008 Spring 2015 5

Windows Vista January 2007 Spring 2017

Windows 7Windows 8

October 2009October 2012

Spring 2020Spring 2022

Windows Server 2003 April 2003 Spring 2015

Windows Server 2008 October 2009 Spring 2019

Linux (Fedora Core 6(K12LTSP 4.2+))

November 2007 Spring 2017 6

Linux Ubuntu 9-12 October 2009 Spring 2019 6

iOS 6 June 2012 TBD 6

Android 4.x October 2011 TBD 6

Windows 8 October 2012 TBD

Chrome OS Rolling Release TBD 6

5 While the entire end o suppor t plan will be reviewed annually with the Architecture Review Board,these particular OS versions will be emphasized and may require more detailed conversations.

6 This operating system may have a lower cost to update than do traditional operating systems andwill be placed on an expedited end o suppor t cycle until the new operating system version becomesincompatible with legacy hardware that is otherwise considered eligible by Smarter Balanced.


27/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



21


There will be instances in which districts might consider pooling moremobile units, like laptops or tablets within their district or transport romone school site to the next as testing windows are staggered acrosssites. In some instances, however, certain equipment was purchasedand deployed to speci c sites and to speci c user populationswith program unding that requires it be kept at a single site, or beappropriated or a single population as a condition o the corresponding

unds. Districts will want to check out the use provisions or all assets inaccordance with such documentation.

There will also be a need in certain scenarios or various districts toconsider the purchase o additional computers or computational devices.

As is standard or most districts, there will be purchasing guidelines andvendor relationships in place to dictate the types and speci cations o units to be secured and integrated into existing site inventories. Mostnew hardware will naturally all well into the speci cations released so

ar by Smarter Balanced. District purchasing agents and technology o cers should be diligent in working with their existing vendors to makethem aware o the new hardware minimum recommendations to ensurethat all new purchases meet or exceed those speci cations.

Many districts have orayed into the mobile computing device market inthe past ew years. Whether deploying netbooks, tablets, or handheld

devices, districts are opting to replenish some aging hardwarewith smaller, mobile units that are considerably di erent than theirpredecessors. One unique challenge this presents is when thesenew purchasing considerations all outside o long-standing vendorarrangements that have historically obligated a district to use certainbrands and models.

Like traditional computers, tablet-based computing devices run on avariety o operating systems (OS). The majority o tablets operate onone o the Android OS versions rom Google since it can be operatedacross numerous vendor devices. Apples popular tablet series (iPad,iPad2, the new iPad, and the iPad mini) operates exclusively on ApplesiOS. Microso t has provided a tablet OS in the way o Windows 7 andrecently released the Windows 8 version that is purported to be deviceagnostic. The Chromebook, also rom Google, primarily operates as acloud-computing device built around the Chrome browser with traditional

eatures such as word processing handled via web-based applications asopposed to on-board so tware.

While the use o technology presents new and uniquechallenges, Cali ornia looks orward to providing teachers and administrators immediate student per ormance datain relation to Cali orniasCommon Core Standards as part o a growing need to move rom paper and pencil assessment solutions tocomputer adaptive tests that can generate digitally-rich data or all stakeholders.

Jos Ortega,AdministratorCali ornia Departmento Education &Smarter BalancedState Readiness


28/30

22

The tablet eld will continue to grow. But like most logic models utilizedby IT departments when considering any technologies, it is importantto review a series o basic questions when analyzing available optionson operating systems, such as display settings (speci cally, on-screenkeyboards that use some o the available inter ace), eatures, andprice. Some considerations to keep in mind as part o an ongoingdiscussion among instructional specialists, district IT leads, andvendors should resonate around the various eatures desired in newmobile devices.

Districts should directly consult upcoming speci cation documentsrom Smarter Balanced and consider: storage space o ered on the

device, connectivity methods such as Wi-Fi and SIM-Based (cellulardata provider plans), access to instructional applications and learningcontent providers, and durability or active transport and use by studentpopulation. While districts have a signi cant history with purchasingand support o more traditional orm actors like laptops and desktops,the tablet and mobile computing device arena will pose a newconsideration process or many.


29/30

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY



23


VI. Matching Device and Content Needs

with Assessment CapacityA key strategy that uni es all states is ensuring that the devices used toexecute upcoming assessments are also legitimate instructional supportassets that serve the needs o teachers and students every day o theschool year. As part o this e ort, IT leaders will need to closely partnerwith instructional sta , administrators, library media specialists, andeducation technologists to chart a clear course toward enabling devices

or both instruction and assessment.

Districts and institutions o higher education need to understand that their in ormationtechnology department is part o the e ort to improve instruction but is not the only responsible department. Establishing a data-driven culture requires much more than simply buying a computer system. District sta rom the in ormation technology department need to join with assessment, curriculum, and instruction sta as well as top decision makers and work together to iteratively develop and improve data collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination.

Enhancing Teaching and Learning Through Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics: An Issue Brie , 2012; US Dept. o Education Technology

Historically, standardized assessments have not been synonymous withtimely data tied intimately to instructional objectives and pacing roma given district, school, or teachers perspective. There ore, in many states, the major annual assessments have been seen as a limitedmethod, at best, o assessing a schools e cacy. The assessmentinstruments and data-aggregation and delivery systems have beenlargely deemed inconsistent with the instructional planning and analysesprocess. The move to online, digitized assessments will help provide

teachers and education leaders with a means to integrate strongsummative pictures o student learning and accompanying interimper ormance data into yearlong planning and support.

Coordinating the most promising technical tools with growing amountso quality, digitized content, rich, open data, and locally generatedin ormation on each student will help revise the image standardizedassessments hold with educators. Considering the adaptive nature o


30/30

the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium model, the hope is tomove teachers rom the margins o the assessment dialogue to thecenter o the conversation. These assessments are not meant to bea means to an end, but a beginning to a better conversation aboutlearning, instruction, and equity. With more quality data, we can askquestions like, What are the critical skills students will require to not

just live, but thrive in the 21st century? And once we have identi edthose skills, how can we best measure them in a way that harmoniously underpins, not ractures, the creative, individualized, refectiveenvironments teachers work to create in their own classrooms?

Students per ormances are most signi cantly in ormed by the skills

and expertise o the sta that teach them. Because o this, it isimperative that we work to give teachers the best in ormation and toolspossible as an instructionally valuable, internally threaded componentto their practice. It is critical that teachers become stewards inassisting with the validity and consistency o these new tools andthe data that is generated to help them better gauge practices thatrein orce learning.

Each district will be joining thousands o other districts to respond to oneo the largest and most critical directives given to education in the last50 years: deploy a common set o standards and the means by which to

assess themin the next three years. This document and the researchthat supports it, as guided by partnering state input, district interviews,and principal agency and stakeholder review, is one o many points o in ormation that will help public education respond to this historicalimperative.

Delivering instructionally use ul in ormation to urther enable thee cacy o teachers and provide all students individualized learningopportunities is a goal we must promise to keep.

Delivering programmatically use ul data to aid in site-and district-level

evaluation o support services is an overall objective we mustwork to embrace.

Delivering assessments online is the rst step we must prepare to take.

For the most up-to-date in ormation, please visithttp://www.smarterbalanced.org.

While my school-site lauds a battery o requently administered homogeneous assessments as vital to quality education, I do not. On thecontrary: My experience suggests that standardizationo pedagogical practice and quality education areinversely related. Over the past thirteen years as ateacher, Ive learned that the most meaning ul, potentially li e-changing classroomexperiences are those least likely to leave a data trail.

High SchoolEnglish Instructor

Testing and accountability should remain at the heart o national educationpolicy. Equity and nationalprosperity depend on asystem that will stretcheducators, the educationsystem, and communitiesto work toward highachievement and that willenable clear accountability

when achievement goals aremissed. But there should benew orms o assessment,

unctioning in new ways within the education system,to meet the needs.

An American Examination System, Wireless Generation,Inc.; Resnick & Berger,

Documents

Smarter Balanced - System Requirements