This document presents the results of the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) assessment completed by teachers at Benfer Elementary School over three years. It shows that Benfer scored in the "Advanced Technology" level in all areas, though teaching and learning scored lowest, particularly in online learning. Recommendations include creating a technology plan focused on improving online learning, providing teacher training, and fully integrating technology into lesson plans.

1. STaR Chart
Benfer Elementary
We will maximize student potential academically and socially
through a positive and safe environment.


2. Agenda
 Introduction to Campus STaR results
 Purposes of STaR
 Campus Results and Trends
 Recommendations
 Summary

3. STaR
 STaR = School Technology and Readiness
 Completed each year by teachers on the campus as a self-
assessment of the campus’ and district’s efforts to effectively
integrate technology across the curriculum
 Fulfills requirements of No Child Left Behind
 The assessment is aligned to the Texas Long-Range Plan
for Technology (2006-2020) and the four key areas found
within the plan:
 Teaching and Learning
 Educator Preparation and Developmen
 Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support
 Infrastructure for Technology.

4. Purpose of STaR
 Measure the impact of state and local efforts to improve
student learning through the use of technology.
 Identify needs for on-going professional development and
raise awareness of research-based instructional goals.
 Gauge progress in integrating technology into teaching and
learning.
 Be shared with school boards, community groups, and
technology planning committees as it is aligned with state
and local goals.

5. Benfer Results
0 5 10 15 20 25
Teaching and Learning
Educator Preparation &
Development
Leadership, Administration, &
Instructional Support
Infrastructure for Technology
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09

6. Benfer Trends
 All four areas have been rated at Advanced Technology over the
three year period, which is the 3rd highest in the four point scale.
 Teaching and Learning: remained almost constant over the
three-year period. Consistently the lowest rated area was online
learning (rated 2 each year).
 Educator Preparation and Development: fluctuated up and
down. The lowest rated area was professional development for
online learning (rated 2 each year).
 Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support:
remained almost constant over the three-year period. All items
were rated either a three of four each year. Budget was the only
item rated a 4 each year.
 Infrastructure for Technology: experienced a jump and then
remained the same the following year. All items excluding
technical support was rated a 3 or 4 each year. Technical support
was rated 2 each year.

7. Recommendations
 Use results to create a campus and district technology
plan.
 Focus on use of online learning to improve key areas.
 Provide training to teachers who were not able to rate
themselves highly
 Coordinate the use of electronic data in campus
planning and decision making
 Ensure that lesson plans fully integrate technology as
appropriate

8. Summary
 Greatest strength in the key areas of leadership,
administration and instructional support and
infrastructure for technology with the highest rated
items budget and internet connectivity.
 Greatest weakness is the area of teaching and learning
with the lowest rated item online learning.
 We are on our way to fully embrace
and utilize technology both
within our own work and with our
students’ learning.