Memo To:

Members, Board of Education Dr. Karen Sullivan

From: Adam Smeets, Chief Technology Officer

Date: August 12, 2019

Re: Student Information System Contract

BOARD MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 APPLICABLE BOARD POLICY(S):

4:60 – Purchases and Contracts 7:340 – Student Records

RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the Board of Education approve the five-year Student Information System contract to Edupoint as presented.

RATIONALE:

Over the past school year, the District experienced regular technical support challenges with upgrades and updates completed by our current vendor. In addition to support challenges, we experienced significant outages that have impacted the overall student information system (SIS) experience. For these reasons, we investigated if there were better options to provide services to our students, staff, and families.

The District completed an extensive three-month RFP including District staff, families, students and administration, gathering 61,000 evaluation data points. Based on this process which included an assessment of District requirements, total cost of ownership, system security and infrastructure, training, on-going support, and a formal transition plan, Technology Services recommends the approval of the contract as presented.

2 Student Information System Recommendation

Table of Contents Pursuing an RFP Process .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Guiding Beliefs About the Process .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Engagement with ClientFirst ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Proposals Received ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Request for Proposal Process ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Gathering Feedback and Insight from Focus Group Workshops (April 8 – 29, 2019) ....................................................................................................... 5 Request for Proposal Developed (May 3 – 24, 2019) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Request for Proposal Available (May 24, 2019) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Pre-Proposal Conference, Questions and District Responses (May 28 – June 7, 2019) .................................................................................................... 6 Round 1 Vendor Preliminary Demonstrations (June 17 – 20, 2019) ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Proposal Evaluation and Finalist Selection ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Round 1 Score Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Round 2 Vendor Finalist Demonstrations ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Round 2 Score Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Summary of Evaluation Scores .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Recommendation for Adoption and Implementation ............................................................................................................................................ 9 About Edupoint ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 What is Synergy? ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Why Synergy? ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

Implementation Planning and Project Management ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 References and Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Student Data Privacy Pledge Signatory .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Google Classroom Integration and 2-Way Automatic Sync .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Student and Family Portal, including Mobile Applications ................................................................................................................................................. 13 District and Family Communication, including Translation ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Online Registration ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

3 Student Information System Recommendation

Pursuing an RFP Process

The primary goals for the District moving from a request for quotations to a request for proposal process were to:

• gain an understanding of SIS product capabilities to optimally select, implement and operate a system that will meet the District’s needs for the next 7 – 10 years;

• assess the total cost of ownership for an SIS, including installation costs related to initial licensing, training, implementation, development, hardware and infrastructure as well as ongoing costs (such as software maintenance, technical support, and software release upgrade costs); and

• select a vendor partner with a product strategy and product enhancement delivery/implementation history that will meet the District’s needs (both for scale and future additional functionality including regulatory requirements) throughout the life of the product usage by the District.

Vendors were invited to propose a complete SIS system consisting of software, hardware, installation, data conversion, software customization, training, software support, standard reports and integration with Federal reporting requirements and State of Illinois (ISBE) reporting requirements.

Guiding Beliefs About the Process

While developing the RFP process, our team developed a set of guiding beliefs, embedded in the values of Technology Services, that serve(d) as reminders throughout our search:

• Collaboration and Customer Service. Technology Services will continue the development of partnerships across the District to develop our new SIS as a platform for innovation and growth. Successful implementation and rollout cannot occur without collaboration and a focus on service delivery.

• Continuing Education. With a system and foundational shift as large as a student information system, Technology Services will be ensuring that training and professional development opportunities are available to best support our District staff, students, and families.

• Multifaceted Decision-Making. The selection process will include multiple factors to triangulate the best selection for the District. The process will include representation from multiple groups, a foundation in developing technical requirements through focus group workshops and live demonstrations to assess options and viable alternatives.

• Responsive to Emerging Trends. We anticipated that several key features not currently available in our current SIS would rise to the surface through the focus group workshops. These changes will require our District and Technology Services to embrace innovation and consider the best ways to interact and engage with District staff, students, and families.

• Transparent and Inclusive. Our efforts will be continually focused on transparency and inclusivity to ensure that we select and ultimately deliver a uniquely IPSD experience – one that is efficient, structured, client-focused, self-service driven, timely, and cost-conscious.

Engagement with ClientFirst

Technology Services partnered with ClientFirst Technology Consulting to provide general RFP process guidance and feedback. ClientFirst assisted in structuring and facilitating the focus group workshops, including assembling the feedback from all sessions. From this feedback, ClientFirst developed our technical and functional requirements for District review and evaluation. They also provided independent scoring throughout the process. Their recommendation in support of Edupoint as the District recommendation is available in Appendix A. Our relationship with ClientFirst Consulting (https://clientfirstcg.com/) dates back to 2013 for eRate and RFP consultations. ClientFirst works with local governments and educational institutions on solutions for services and operations, telecom, and other consulting areas. During this process, Technology Services took an active role in developing the RFP, case demonstrations, and evaluation processes following the Focus Group Workshops. Our active involvement resulted in reduced overall costs for consulting with ClientFirst and increased participation, ownership, and Department engagement.

4 Student Information System Recommendation

Evaluation Criteria

From our focus group workshop feedback, Technology Services identified a set of evaluation criteria that aided in categorizing the scoring of evaluators responses:

• Total Cost of Ownership (20%) – Total cost of ownership was determined based on the cost of the software, annual maintenance, training, database management, professional services, installation services, and hardware costs. We evaluated pricing scores based on a sliding scale with the lowest responsible cost proposal receiving full points. All other proposals received a percentage of the overall available points based on the difference of their pricing from the lowest provided. The District is not required to select the lowest-priced bid in fulfillment of services since other factors influence final ranking and recommendation. Not selecting the lowest-priced bid is supported by Board policy 4:60 referencing that while the lowest cost of products and services is important, we need to consider “service, reliability, and delivery promptness” of a proposal. Per the Illinois School Code (105 ILCS 5/10-20.21), the District has the latitude to select data processing equipment, software, or services based on fit, compatibility with other systems and overall needs of the District.

• District Technical and Functional Requirements (25%) – Vendors were provided with 1,414 individual District requirements to assess if their proposed product included said requirements. District requirements included an overview of the modules, functional requirements, technical requirements, integrations, and integration requirements for our next SIS.

• Written RFP Response (15%) – In the RFP packet, vendors received 20 prompts and forms that requested structured responses to the following categories: Proposer Information, District Affidavits and Forms, Company Information and Experience, Technical Responses, project management, training, and federal & state reporting

• Round 1 Demonstrations (20%) – Round 1 Demonstrations were based on vendors providing software and technical demonstrations of their SIS product. These demonstrations enabled the team to review the proposed SIS product and determine which product was best able to meet the functional and technical requirements as well as the demands of the District. Vendors were asked to present on nine cases and were scored, by task and by case, on ease of use, level of functionality, and compatibility with district needs.

• Round 2 Demonstrations (15%) – Round 2 Demonstrations were based on vendors providing software and technical demonstrations of their SIS product. These demonstrations provided vendors an opportunity to present to District staff, students, and families to determine which product was best able to meet their needs. Vendors were provided with a pre-established list of audiences and time windows but were free to present on any area of their system to the specific audience.

• Reference Checks (5%) – Vendors were encouraged to provide up to five references with 1) experience with their company that is no more than three years old; 2) districts with a similar size and scale of implementation; 3) locations within or near Illinois; and 4) references that served as an implementer and at the user level. Technology Services sent a mixed-methods survey to each of the references provided by finalist vendors to gather their feedback. We also contacted select references for additional follow-up and clarification.

Proposals Received

The District received proposals from six (6) vendors 1: Follett Aspen, Skyward, PowerSchool, Tyler Technologies, Edupoint Synergy, Infinite Campus. Two other vendors considered submitting a letter of intent; however, did not meet the reporting requirements for the State of Illinois or were too new to the Illinois market and withdrew their intent.

1 Responses are listed based on the order submitted to the District. Product names are listed in italics if the product has a different name from the company name.

5 Student Information System Recommendation

Request for Proposal Process

Gathering Feedback and Insight from Focus Group Workshops (April 8 – 29, 2019)

Technology Services completed thirty (30) focus group workshops with representation and membership across District staff 2 and roles - ahead of schedule. These workshops provided opportunities with District staff and families to gather feedback on the features and elements of a system that are most important. Participants included representation from the following groups and were grouped by level: assistant principals, the Business Office, counselors, members of the Curriculum and Instruction team, deans, the English Language Learners (ELL) staff, the Indian Prairie Parents Council, principals, secretaries, members of the Student Services team, teachers and members of the Technology Services team. The workshops provided a platform to:

• Communicate the process for, and the value of, transparency in the RFP selection process;

• Gather feedback and usability experience with current features that work well and should be maintained, as well as areas that with improvement, would be more holistically embraced;

• Identify additional features or technical components that are critical to include as part of the search process for all District audiences; and

• Listen and learn about the enhancements that are essential for a “connected” online experience for the District staff, students, and families.

Participants provided valuable insights as members of our search committee in discussions related to:

• Ad Hoc Reporting • Analytics • Assessments • Athletic Eligibility • Attendance • Behavior • Check-In and Event Management • Communication • Course Catalog • Curriculum • Data Migration • Early Alerts & Interventions

• Fees • Free Reduced Lunch Eligibility • Grade Books • Health • Individualized Education Program • Integrations • Parent Portals • Report Cards • Scheduling • State Reporting • Transcripts • Transportation

We identified key fundamentals and recommendations from each of the focus groups. In summary, District staff, students, and families recommended:

• Notifications, including those delivered to mobile devices, are essential to staying connected;

• Uptime and reliability, including responsiveness, are critical to the timeliness of responsibilities;

• Additional options for District communication and outreach to and from families;

• Making mobile app access to the SIS a priority;

• More holistically integrated Google Classroom and grade book;

• Selecting a platform that emphasizes ease of use, specifically reducing unnecessary steps and clicks;

• Reducing the sprawl of applications that could potentially be served by a more deeply integrated SIS;

2 District staff were identified by either a building principal or another staff member based on their experience with our current SIS. This included individuals with limited through advanced experience to system administration to ensure coverage and feedback variety.

6 Student Information System Recommendation

• Ensuring that data security and privacy of District data were a priority; and

• Focusing on a service that provides on-going support, including multiple training approaches. From the overall focus group feedback, we developed 1,414 functional and technical requirements that captured the District’s needs. Vendors then identified how well their product best aligned with District requirements. A copy of the functional and technical requirements are available on the Technology Services SIS project website at http://bit.ly/SISRFP-Functional.

Request for Proposal Developed (May 3 – 24, 2019)

Over three weeks, Technology Services developed a 112-page Request for Proposal based on Education Reform and Department of Education fundamentals which incorporated District feedback from the Focus Group Workshops. In addition to the standard resources, the Proposal included demonstration cases. These cases provided an opportunity to take a different approach to functional requirements analysis using actors (someone who performs a behavior), stakeholders, scenarios, pre-conditions (what must be true for the case to be started), triggers (an event that causes a case to start), expectations and outstanding questions.

From the District focus groups, Technology Services developed nine use cases based on feedback and common themes. Use cases were provided to each vendor to support a 2-hour presentation. From these presentations, two (2) vendors moved forward for larger consideration by the District in a second-round demonstration presentation. We evaluated each task on the ease of use for staff or respective user, the level of functionality and overall compatibility with District needs. A copy of the Request for Proposal is available on the Technology Services SIS project website at http://bit.ly/SISRFP-Proposal.

Request for Proposal Available (May 24, 2019)

On May 24, 2019, the District released the Proposal and its resources on the Technology Services website. We announced the RFP in the Naperville Sun. Technology Services opted to post this RFP in the Naperville Sun to ensure equitable access and notification to potential vendors. With the District size and scope of need, we knew that increasing visibility of our process was critical to ensuring a wider breadth of available vendors. A copy of the Naperville Sun posting is available on the newspaper site in column 6 at http://bit.ly/SISRFP-Naperville. Pictured on the right, Technology Services used an online submission process for all RFP proposal materials. This process guided vendors through completing a submission and ensured that the District received all required materials.

Pre-Proposal Conference, Questions and District Responses (May 28 – June 7, 2019)

Technology Services provided an online Pre-Proposal Conference. Attendance was recommended but not mandatory. Sixteen (16) participants attended the Pre-Proposal Conference. Following the conference, the District received thirteen (13) follow-up questions during our question period and posted the answers on the SIS Project Site. By providing the Conference, vendors had an opportunity to ask clarifying questions, gather additional information about the District and to gain an understanding, early on, of how many vendors were interested in the District’s RFP process. A copy of the Pre-Proposal Conference slides is available on the Technology Services SIS project website at http://bit.ly/SISRFP-Slides.

7 Student Information System Recommendation

Round 1 Vendor Preliminary Demonstrations (June 17 – 20, 2019)

Technology Services and other District evaluators participated in six (6) Round 1 Case Demonstrations at the Crouse Education Center (CEC) between June 17 and June 20, 2019. 25,000 rating items were collected from 15 evaluators and tabulated to determine overall scores for each vendor presentation. The following teams were involved in the evaluation process for Round 1: Technology Services, Student Services, Curriculum and Instruction, and ClientFirst.

Proposal Evaluation and Finalist Selection

In addition to the Round 1 Case Demonstrations, which accounted for 20% of the overall points, finalist selection was determined based on the following:

• Total Cost of Ownership (20%): Vendors provided their overall five-year cost estimates based on the definition provided in the “Evaluation Criteria” section. A copy of the Total Cost of Ownership form is available at http://bit.ly/SISRFP-TCO.

• District Technical and Functional Requirements (25%): 32,000 rating items were collected from six vendors and tabulated to determine overall scores for the technical and functional requirements. Again, the Focus Group Workshops were the platform for developing our overall District requirements. A copy of the District’s functional and technical requirements is available at http://bit.ly/SISRFP-Functional.

• Written RFP Response (15%): 3,000 rating items were collected from evaluators and tabulated to determine overall scores for the written proposals. These evaluations reviewed twenty-four (24) components of each submitted proposal. These components included items such as the proposed hosting environment, training plans, implementation plans, security, support and maintenance, reporting, and overall product strategy. A copy of the response form is available at http://bit.ly/SISRFP-Proposal.

Round 1 Score Summary

After completing a review of total costs, district requirements, written responses, and round one demonstrations, the following table provides a score summary by vendor:

Round 1 Rank

Proposal Received Vendor Name

Total Cost of Ownership (20%)

Technical and Functional

Requirements (25%)

Written RFP Evaluation (15%)

Round 1 Demonstrations

(20%) 1 6/14/2019 Edupoint Synergy 141.25 237.10 136.58 157.61 2 6/13/2019 Follett Aspen 200.00 203.17 113.42 126.78 3 6/14/2019 Infinite Campus 129.51 247.19 84.42 81.10 4 6/14/2019 Tyler SIS 98.63 192.69 78.00 114.62 5 6/13/2019 PowerSchool 73.29 210.84 74.00 121.82 6 6/13/2019 Skyward 76.07 167.90 94.08 117.77

Average Score 119.79 209.81 96.75 119.95

Standard Deviation 43.80 26.57 21.958 22.402

Round 2 Vendor Finalist Demonstrations

District staff, parents, and students were invited to watch recorded demonstrations from live sessions at Metea Valley High School (Room F215) on July 16th. Due to privacy and protecting the intellectual property of each vendor, access to the recordings of the demonstrations was limited to 48 hours and secured with a password. As of July 19, 2019, the review and feedback period closed.

8 Student Information System Recommendation

After watching the live stream or recordings of the finalist demonstrations, District staff, students and parents were asked to respond and provide feedback to the following statement: “I am confident that this system can meet “my” and the District needs as the new Student Information System.” Feedback notes were provided using the example form provided at the right, as well as 186 views of the recordings, averaging a 52-minute review period per video.

Round 2 Score Summary

After completing second round demonstrations and reference checks with the remaining two finalists, the following table provides a score summary by finalist:

Round 2 Rank

Proposal Received Vendor Name

Round 2 Demonstrations (15%)

References (5%)

1 6/14/2019 Edupoint Synergy 150.00 29.38 2 6/13/2019 Follett Aspen 0.00 6.63

Average Score 107.25 18.00

Standard Deviation 32.25 11.375

Summary of Evaluation Scores

Provided below is a summary of the overall point distribution from the RFP process. In the next section, individual proposals are presented in the order of overall score from lowest to highest.

141.25200.00

129.51 98.63 73.29 76.07

237.10203.17

247.19192.69 210.84 167.90

136.58 113.4284.42

78.00 74.0094.08

157.61 126.78

81.10

114.62 121.82 117.77

150.00

29.38

6.63

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Edupoint Synergy(841.41 Points)

Follett Aspen(724.99 Points)

Infinite Campus(542.21 Points)

Tyler SIS(483.94 Points)

PowerSchool(479.95 Points)

Skyward(455.83 Points)

Tota

l Poi

nts

Out

of 1

,000

Point Distribution Summary

Total Cost of Ownership (20%) Technical and Functional Requirements (25%)

Written RFP Evaluation (15%) Round 1 Demonstrations (20%)

Round 2 Demonstrations (15%) References (5%)

9 Student Information System Recommendation

Recommendation for Adoption and Implementation

About Edupoint

Edupoint Educational Systems has been developing, marketing, installing, and supporting web-based student information systems since 2002. Edupoint’s Synergy Special Education (SE) was released in 2002 and is now endorsed by the Council of Administrators of Special Education and named one of District Administration’s Top 100. The Synergy® Student Information System (SIS) was released in 2004. Of our over 200 staff members, 65 are application developers and quality assurance/testers, 45 are help desk/customer support personnel, and 35 are implementation services team members. Others are engaged in system administration, human resources, accounting, and company management. More than 90% of Edupoint’s staff members are dedicated to direct customer care, including customer support, product development, account management, quality assurance, and professional and training services.

What is Synergy?

As one of the largest providers of student data management solutions in the United States, Edupoint continues to be the preferred choice for districts of all sizes. Edupoint, based on references, has the ability and resources to customize, deploy, implement and maintain Synergy solutions based on industry best practices based on the available modules and services in their service wheel3:

The Synergy Education Platform currently supports more than 4 million students in 5,600 schools across 21 states and 16 of the top 100 largest districts, as well as state-wide deployments in Arizona, Oregon, and Maine. A success story from Lincoln Public Schools (Nebraska) is available in Appendix C. Example deployments include:

• Virginia – Fairfax County Public Schools, 184,000 students at 213 schools

• Georgia – Gwinnett County Public Schools, 185,000 students at 135 schools

3 Areas in the service wheel that are gray will be discussed in the “Modules and Opportunities to Extend the SIS” section later in this document. The color sections are included in the base product costs.

10 Student Information System Recommendation

• New Mexico – Albuquerque Public Schools, 89,500 students at 164 schools

• Arizona – Mesa Public Schools, 75,000 students

• Oregon – Portland Public Schools, 47,000 students at 92 schools

• Minnesota – Anoka-Hennepin Public Schools, 38,748 students at 58 schools

• California – Desert Sands Unified School District, 29,000 students at 35 schools (formerly a PowerSchool customer) Pajaro Valley Unified School District, 28,740 students at 32 schools (formerly a PowerSchool customer)

• Pennsylvania – School District of Lancaster, 11,300 students at 19 schools (formerly a PowerSchool customer)

Why Synergy?

Based on the original belief statements, feedback from evaluators and the District, as well as the guidance from our Future Ready Technology Plan, Synergy is the SIS which will provide the District foundation:

Total Cost of Ownership (200 Points)

Technical and Functional

Requirements (250 Points)

Written RFP Evaluation (150 Points)

Round 1 Demos

(200 Points)

Round 2 Demos

(150 Points) References (50 Points)

Total Points (1,000 Points) Rank

141.25 237.10 136.58 157.61 139.50 29.38 841.41 1 References strongly supported Edupoint and Synergy for their on-time delivery, as well as positive customer service and support for not only the District staff, but also families. Through each of the following sections, we will highlight the components which are strengths for Synergy as the overall recommendation.

Implementation Planning and Project Management

Edupoint has the large-district project management capabilities and experience necessary to meet the needs of the District for a technologically advanced solution with long-term value. Synergy is highly scalable and proven operational in both small and large district environments based on their implementations or larger size district models. Project Management Edupoint will work with the District to plan all project activities to ensure implementation services are tailored to meet the project goals. Due to the importance of the implementation, Edupoint has assigned an Executive Project Sponsor, Deborah Adolphs, Vice President of Project Management and Implementation Services, to assure high-level management awareness and oversight of all aspects of the project. Deborah is a 40-year veteran of K-12 technology, a former classroom teacher, trainer, and project manager. She has extensive experience in technology implementations for some of the nation’s largest and best school districts. She has led Implementation and Support Services at Edupoint since 2010. Edupoint’s Project Manager will coordinate all activities and will work with the District to finalize a project plan that meets the desired implementation rollout strategy and timeline. Edupoint’s project team will consist of several Edupoint staff members with expertise in Project Management, Application Setup, Technical Engineering, Data Conversion, Testing/Quality Assurance, Training, and the District SIS operation. Throughout the life of the project, this plan provides for the management of project activities and risk and includes a structured approach for identifying, tracking, assessing, and resolving project issues. The project plan will describe each of the project phases along with the tasks within each phase and it will clearly define the roles and responsibilities for both IPSD and Edupoint staff.

11 Student Information System Recommendation

Within each phase, there are major areas of activity that are required to accomplish a successful SIS implementation with minimal disruption of school and district office operations. These activities include:

• Project organization and planning – involves organizing the project, establishing project goals and scope, developing project management procedures, and developing a detailed work plan.

• Infrastructure readiness / Installation and configuration – For hosted districts, includes installation and configuration of the Synergy environments in the hosting facility.

• Business process evaluation – involves reviewing current business processes—identifying and implementing needed changes to ensure best business practices that align with Synergy are followed.

• Application and security setup – includes identifying user roles, determining and implementing required security settings, and identifying and implementing the appropriate application configuration settings.

• Data conversion – involves mapping current data elements to those in Synergy, developing data conversion specifications, and converting and loading legacy data.

• Training and support – includes identifying training needs, designing the training program, training the trainers, creating district specific training materials, if required, and training end users.

• Communication – includes identifying communication needs, developing a communication plan, and creating and delivering communications.

The major project activities shown below are further broken down into a discrete set of tasks listed in the Microsoft Project Schedule, which is provided as part of the implementation process:

Phase 1 Planning

Phase 2 Preparation

Phase 3 Testing

Phase 4 Deployment

Phase 5 Support

• Project Organization • Planning • Data Conversion Plan • Training Plan • External Interface Plan • Support Plan

• Installation • Application and

Security Setup • Data Conversion

• 3rd Party Interface Development

• Training

• Application Reviews • Data Validation

Review (DVR)

• 3rd Party Interface Validation

• Go Live Readiness System Test

• Production Conversion • End-User Training • Go Live Support

• Turnover to Customer Resource Center (CRC)

• Refresher Trainings as needed

• Release Management Turnover (optional)

Implementation Edupoint’s approach to implementation is based upon high levels of collaboration between the District and Edupoint implementation staff. This involves a well-defined task analysis identifying, tracking, and managing the detailed work efforts necessary for a successful implementation, with extensive quality assurance measures built into the implementation tasks. The District received a detailed implementation plan, using the project phases above, that can meet our target deadlines for separating from PowerSchool as of August 15, 2020, and with minimal impact to District operations up until that point, while moving forward to Synergy. Key targets and milestones will be finalized after acceptance from the Board; however, Technology Services identified 2020-2021 course selection, 2020-2021 online registration and beginning the 2020 – 2021 school year in Synergy as key deliverables. District Training Effective training is the single most important element in the implementation of our new student information system. It is also one of the most logistically challenging since it requires the dedication and focus of a large segment of the IPSD staff

12 Student Information System Recommendation

within a concentrated timeframe. Edupoint has implemented its student information system in school districts large (>170,000) and small (<100) nationwide, and the correlation between effective training and acceptance of the new system is definite. Edupoint’s training strategy for training delivered by instructors in a classroom setting uses an instructional sequence that paces learning at an appropriate rate, divides topics into focused objectives, and provides a predictable pattern to the delivery of information. Participants complete four activities with each “chunk” of information. The Preview activity introduces new information and in “setting the scene”, it helps participants organize order and evaluate what they are learning.

• In the Demonstrate and Follow activity, participants process the information being presented. They acquire facts, analyze data, and quantify what they have seen on screen and read in the training guide.

• In the Hands-On activity, participants are exploring, experimenting, conceptualizing, and synthesizing the material. These activities include:

o Guided practice, which is used to introduce new system features.

o Practice activities in which participants are exposed to system features or tasks for a second time.

o Comprehensive exercises that test the participants’ knowledge and skills learned during guided instruction and the practices. These exercises reinforce the learning and usually require the participants to demonstrate cognitive tasks as well as system-based skills. All exercises are based on realistic business scenarios and require participants to demonstrate mastery.

• The Discussion activity provides an opportunity for learners to express their feelings and understanding of what they have learned and to expand learning experienced by individuals to the entire class.

Edupoint’s training plan for IPSD provides face-to-face, on-site training for project team, help desk, district trainers and all school and district-based administrative staff. Edupoint has proposed two options for teacher training.

References and Recommendations

From reference verifications, Technology Services received the following feedback about Synergy and Edupoint:

• Everything was kept on schedule, with regular check-ins and updates. Anything that was shifted was based on conversation and mainly at the request of our district.

• Our users love synergy. In the 2 years we have been online we have added modules due to stakeholder want and desires.

• Synergy SE implementation was done by Edupoint. They worked closely with us to make sure we met our deadlines for going live. I don't remember anything specific that fell behind, but I'm sure we had a few open items once we started the school year. Nothing critical and they are responsive to all of our requests. We did go live before the school year as expected!

• They have a lot of experts that were also able to provide best practices to our staff.

• From our experience so far, we have no issues and everyone that has seen Synergy has been excited and remain positive about the change.

Student Data Privacy Pledge Signatory

Edupoint is a signatory of the Student Data Privacy Pledge. By signing this pledge, Edupoint complies at all times with the requirements of the Family Educational Records Privacy Act (“FERPA”) regarding the confidentiality and handling of student records and information, including but not limited to student names, parent names, addresses, grades, disciplinary actions, attendance, health, and other personal matters particular to the respective students as supplied by the school district. Edupoint will only access student information pursuant to prior written parental consent, legitimate educational interests in performing duties on behalf of the District or other provisions

13 Student Information System Recommendation

of federal and state law permitting access to confidential student information.

Google Classroom Integration and 2-Way Automatic Sync

Synergy provides Google™ Drive, Google Classroom and Microsoft OneDrive integration, enabling students and teachers to access their cloud-based files without leaving Synergy. Assignments created in Google Classroom automatically populate to the TeacherVUE Gradebook, and vice-versa. Grades in Google Classroom auto-transfer at the assignment level as well. This level of integration for teachers that use Google Classroom will be a game changer, not requiring grade exports or moving between multiple systems to review student work.

Student and Family Portal, including Mobile Applications

The student and family portals give each group unprecedented web and mobile access to grades, assignments, and communication with teachers and staff. The portals and the iOS and Android apps provide anytime, anywhere, real-time access to their child’s information.

District and Family Communication, including Translation

The Synergy translation engine provides language translation support for our District. Families and students may select a language from a list of district-supported languages within the web portals or mobile apps - interfaces offer support for 20+ languages. This includes translation for messages sent from and to teachers, staff, students and family.

Online Registration

Synergy Online Registration makes school registration and re-enrollment easier for families and will save time for staff. Synergy automatically creates a complete, real-time enrollment record in Synergy SIS when a student is accepted, so there’s no need to integrate or sync systems or manually move data.