Technology Plan Evaluation

1

Technology Plan Evaluation

FRIT 7232: Visionary Leadership in Instructional TechnologyDr. Charles B. Hodges

Fall 2013

By Hannah Dyal

Gabrielle Guyton-EdmistonRhonda Roberts

Melissa Shaw

2

Table of Contents

I. Annotated Bibliography

II. Technology Plan Rubric

III. Technology Plan Evaluation Rubric

IV. Technology Plan Evaluation Explanations and Recommendations

3

I. Annotated Bibliography

Appling County School District Technology PlanRetrieved from: http://www.appling.k12.ga.us/Default.asp?PN=Forms&L=1&DivisionID=6973&LMID=280318&ToggleSideNav=Single

Bleckley County Schools Technology PlanRetrieved from: http://www.bleckley.k12.ga.us/docs/11techplan.pdf

Chatham County Technology PlanRetrieved from: http://technology-support-resources.district.chatham.k12.nc.us/modules/locker/files/get_group_file.phtml?fid=15936058&gid=2368988

Decatur Technology PlanRetrieved from: http://www.decaturcountyschools.org/TechnologyPlan2013_2016DecaturCounty.pdf

Houston County Technology PlanRetrieved from: http://www.hcbe.net/media/276859/hcboe%20tech%20plan%2011-14.pdf

These resources are the original technology plans that we reviewed. We examined each plan and compared each one with the rest of the technology plans we reviewed. Each technology plan gave us an insight into what a technology plan on the district level should look like and the elements it should contain. We compared the five plans in order to deduce the essential elements of an effective technology plan.

4

Kansas Department of Education Scoring RubricRetrieved from: http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2780

This is a rubric used by the Kansas Department of Education to grade technology plans submitted by districts within the state. This is not a typical rubric that has categories and numbers 1-5 for each category. We used parts of this as an outline for our rubric that was put it in a standard rubric format. Their elements for evaluation are board approved district policies section, committee membership/stakeholder representation, district summary of progress and technology goals, technology needs assessment, district technology infrastructure goals and objectives curriculum integration goals and objectives, technology professional development goals and objective, and technology plan verification for E-rate purposes.

LInc Online Technology Plan RubricRetrieved from: http://ed.fnal.gov/lincon/staff_rubric.shtml

This rubric is from Illinois. It is in standard rubric form and includes all the required elements of a rubric for the assignment. The elements of this rubric are vision, current situation, community/school support, engaged learning goals and activities, professional development goals and activities, timeline, assessment/evaluation, and design. It was used as a reference for the creation of the rubric below.

Technology Plan Rubric-The University of Texas at AustinRetrieved from: http://jabba.edb.utexas.edu/it/fc_resta_courses_files/itpm/m0_6tprubric.html

This is another rubric used to grade district technology plans. It is in standard rubric form and is very thorough. Ideas were taken from this rubric and used in the rubric below. The elements of this rubric are executive summary, identifies contributors and stakeholder groups, vision statement, mission statement, goals, objectives, needs assessment, general issues, conclusions and recommendations, acceptable use policy, technology and learning statement, technology standards, requirements, and models for teaching and learning, staff development, technology support, projects, budgets, and timelines, and clarity of writing.

5

State Technology Planning Analysis RubricRetrieved from: http://naepdc.org/Word%20Documents/STATE%20TECHN%20PLANNING%20ANALYSIS%20RUBRIC.doc

This is another resource used for creating our rubric. Many elements of this rubric were used in creating our own rubric. The rubric was easy to understand and transfer ideas into our rubric. Some of the elements of this rubric are needs assessment, mission and/or vision, goals and objectives, action plans, program and curriculum integration, evaluation, funding alternatives, maintenance and support, and copyright and acceptable use policy.

Executive Summary: National Education Technology PlanRetrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010/executive-summary

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education released a National Education Technology Plan that has five major components: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. The focus of learning is to engage and empower students through technology in and out of school. Measuring what matters and using that guide instruction and improvement is what’s emphasized in assessment. The teaching component focuses on preparation through individual, team, and in-service training in order for teachers to fully connect with technology and use it as a powerful teaching tool. Comprehensive infrastructure is necessary for all students to have access to technology and enable them to access that technology twenty-four hours a day. The productivity goal emphasizes utilizing technology to increase learning and make more efficient use of resources.

Six-Step Process in Creating a Technology PlanRetrieved from: http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/instrtech/techplan/gettingstarted.htm

The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education created a six step process to creating a technology plan. Getting started includes selecting a committee and making sure the technology focuses are represented. Next a clear, concise mission statement needs to be developed that will encompass a three to five year district technology plan. Then the committee needs to analyze the data to determine where their strengths and weaknesses are in order to make recommendations. After that, goals and objectives are written. Next a chart is made to determine action steps, timeline for implementation, and who is responsible for the implementation. Finally, the plan is communicated to the district and its implementation is monitored for necessary changes and improvements.

6

Anderson, Larry S. (1999). Technology planning: it’s more than computers [PDF document]. Retrieved from the National Center for Technology Planning site: http://www.nctp.com/articles/tpmore.pdf

This article is about technology planning and how it’s imperative that this takes place in all districts across the world. The purpose of technology planning is for each district to constantly seek evidence of growth in technology. A great technology planning effort consist of incorporating computers and other technologies because this has the potential of building, strengthening, and sustaining learners through networks and events that embody the concept of community. Technology planners must always remember that growth comes from facing the honest reality of a condition, then working together to build a strategy for guaranteed success.

Kennedy, M. (2010). Connecting to the future. American School and University, 82(9). 14-21.

This article summarizes the five main goals of the Department of Education for technology plans across the country as we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century. The first goal is learning so that students are using technology inside and outside of schools to enhance learning and creativity. The second goal is using assessment data gained through technology for measurement and improvement purposes. The next goal is to use technology to maximize the effectiveness of teachers. Fourth, infrastructure needs to be in place in order for these things to happen for all students and teachers. Finally, technology will be used to increase productivity.

Overbay, A., Mollette, M., & Vasu, E. (2011). A technology plan that works. Educational Leadership, 68(5). 56-59.

The authors of this article assert that there are five main lessons that administrators should keep in mind when implementing new technology plans. The first is that it’s not about the technology. Rather, it’s about the people who are doing the planning, teaching, and learning. Next, the technology plan needs to fit the needs of the school including needs of the personnel and the school’s infrastructure. Third, professional development must be built in when new technology is added to schools, and it must be timely and in the right amounts. Giving collaboration its due is the fourth lesson because teachers can learn from each other and essentially have professional development that is peer led. Lastly, schools need to become turnover-proof because technology initiatives can be killed when there’s too much turnover.

7

Whitehead, B., Jensen, D. & Boschee, F. (2003). Planning for technology: a guide for school administrators, technology coordinators, and curriculum leaders. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press.

This book focuses on integrating computers in the general curriculum, which represents a shift from simply providing computer labs. The book provides valuable information on establishing a technology plan which supports in-class technology for students and teachers. In addition, a model is included which supports evaluation and assessment of the technology plan. Professional development, financial management, leadership and planning strategies are emphasized.

8

II. Technology Plan Rubric

CATEGORY Well-Defined 6 Pts.Needs Clarification 4 Pts. Beginning 2 Pts.

Goals Goals are broad, comprehensive and realistic in addressing teaching and learning needs. Goals clearly answer the questions: Who? What? By when? By how much? According to which instrument? Submitted on time.

Goals are mostly equipment based and loosely linked to improvement plans. Submitted on time.

Goals are absent or seem to be only equipment based; are not measurable; are incomplete, difficult to understand; or are submitted late.

Professional Development

All of the following items are present:

Plan supports all staff within the school/district.

Staff development is supported through collaboration with peers.

Technical assistance is provided.

Time is allotted to promote learning and knowledge acquisition.

Three of the following items are present:




Time to promote learning and knowledge acquisition is allotted.

Zero to two of the following items are present:




Time to promote learning and knowledge acquisition is not allotted.

Assessment of Services Needed

The plan clearly and consistently identifies:

Data collection for effective evaluation (quantitative and qualitative).

Goals and indicators of achievement.

Integration into the curriculum.

Realistic accomplishments to individual situation.

The process as ongoing.

The plan generally identifies:




The plan is missing and/or does not address one or all of the following:

data collection for effective evaluation (quantitative and qualitative)

goals and indicators of achievement

integration

9



into the curriculum

realistic accomplishments to individual situation

the process as ongoing

Accessibility of Technology Resources

Technology resources that are available to all schools, faculty, students, and community members are listed in the plan.

A few technology resources that are available to all schools, faculty, students, and community members are listed in the plan.

Technology resources that are available to all schools, faculty, students, and community members are missing and not listed in the plan.

Budget Provides a prioritized list of major tech plan projects, tasks and timelines. Provides budget summary estimate of capital expenses (hardware, software, facilities, infrastructure, staff development, tech support, etc.) Identifies possible alternative funding resources. Projects, timelines, and budgets are realistic and consistent with plan goals and objectives. Submitted on time.

Provides most, but not all, of the project, timelines, and budget estimate information. Appears to be generally consistent with plan goals. Submitted on time.

Projects, budgets, or timelines missing; provides vague or little information on project, budgets, or timelines; projects appear not relevant to plan goals; budget estimates appear incongruent with plan or unrealistic; or not submitted on time.

Ongoing Evaluation

An evaluation process and instrument are described in detail, and are comprehensive in nature. Assessment is timely, and tied to the objectives.

An evaluation process and instrument are mentioned, but not in detail. Objectives need clarification.

An evaluation process is lacking, or is described, but lacks detail and comprehensiveness. It does not refer to the objectives

Design Uses the template, easy to read and understand spelling/grammar/punctuation correct, header/footer completed.

The design and elements need clarification, there are a few grammar/spelling errors, or header and footer are missing.

The correct template was not used.

10

III. Technology Plan Evaluation Rubric

Our group evaluated the Forsyth County Schools technology plan for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2015. The plan can be viewed at: http://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/cms/lib3/GA01000373/Centricity/Domain/33/2012-2015TechPlanforweb.pdf

CATEGORY Well-Defined 6 Pts.

Needs Clarification 4 Pts. Beginning 2 Pts. Score

Goals Goals are broad, comprehensive and realistic in addressing teaching and learning needs. Goals clearly answer the questions: Who? What? By when? By how much? According to which instrument? Submitted on time.

Goals are mostly equipment based and loosely linked to improvement plans. Submitted on time.

Goals are absent or seem to be only equipment based; are not measurable; are incomplete, difficult to understand; or are submitted late.

6


All of the following items are present:




Time is allotted to promote learning and knowledge acquisition.

Three of the following items are present:




Time to promote learning and knowledge acquisition is allotted.

Zero to two of the following items are present:




Time to promote learning and knowledge acquisition is not allotted.

6

http://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/cms/lib3/GA01000373/Centricity/Domain/33/2012-2015TechPlanforweb.pdf

http://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/cms/lib3/GA01000373/Centricity/Domain/33/2012-2015TechPlanforweb.pdf

11


The plan clearly and consistently identifies:






The plan generally identifies:






The plan is missing and/or does not address one or all of the following:

data collection for effective evaluation (quantitative and qualitative)

goals and indicators of achievement

integration into the curriculum

realistic accomplishments to individual situation

the process as ongoing

4


Technology resources that are available to all schools, faculty, students, and community members are listed in the plan.

A few technology resources that are available to all schools, faculty, students, and community members are listed in the plan.

Technology resources that are available to all schools, faculty, students, and community members are missing and not listed in the plan.

6

Budget Provides a prioritized list of major tech plan projects, tasks and timelines. Provides budget summary estimate of capital expenses (hardware, software, facilities, infrastructure, staff development, tech support, etc.) Identifies possible alternative funding resources. Projects, timelines, and budgets are realistic and consistent with plan goals and objectives. Submitted on time.

Provides most, but not all, of the project, timelines, and budget estimate information. Appears to be generally consistent with plan goals. Submitted on time.

Projects, budgets, or timelines missing; provides vague or little information on project, budgets, or timelines; projects appear not relevant to plan goals; budget estimates appear incongruent with plan or unrealistic; or not submitted on time.

4

12

Ongoing Evaluation

An evaluation process and instrument are described in detail, and are comprehensive in nature. Assessment is timely, and tied to the objectives.

An evaluation process and instrument are mentioned, but not in detail. Objectives need clarification.

An evaluation process is lacking, or is described, but lacks detail and comprehensiveness. It does not refer to the objectives

6

Design Uses the template, easy to read and understand spelling/grammar/punctuation correct, header/footer completed.

The design and elements need clarification, there are a few grammar/spelling errors, or header and footer are missing.

The correct template was not used.

6

13

IV. Technology Plan Evaluation Explanations and Recommendations

Goals

Evaluation: We chose to give 6 points because we think the goals are well defined and realistic. The goals clearly state who (the whole district) the goals are meant for and who will be responsible for implementing the different strategies, what needs to be done to meet the goals, when these goals need to be met (by June 30, 2015), and the needed instruments to enhance all goals (ME Instructional Framework, ANGEL, NETS-S, FCS Graduate Profile, 21st Century Media Center, iAchieve Virtual Academy, Olweus, etc.).

Recommendation:Our recommendation is for them to specify yearly where they would like to be in regards to their technology plan along with data.


Evaluation: We gave the professional development section a 6. The FCSD maintains an instructional technology support team that includes both an Instructional Technology Specialist and a Media Specialist for each school within the district that clearly provides support to the staff within the school and the district. In addition, this staff also provides technical assistance as needed. The plan also includes reference to Early Release Days as part of an ongoing method of staff development. The Technology department is part of a larger committee that reviews district goals and determines the professional learning goals. Clearly time is allotted to promote professional learning.

Recommendations:Although the plan provides a link to a site that includes each school’s professional learning plan, it is cumbersome to review each link for the thirty-five schools. A table that outlines specifically the professional development related to technology would more clearly identify the professional development in that area.

14


Evaluation: We gave Forsyth County Schools a 4 for assessment of services needed. A method of ongoing data collection is in place. While a plan for classroom observation is in place to identify the level of technology integration at each school and an online instrument is used to facilitate the collection of data from the observations, the data collected is not clearly delineated. We were unable to identify whether the data was quantitative or qualitative.

Recommendations: We recommend that the observation instrument be included in the addendum to the plan.


Evaluation:We gave Forsyth County Schools a 6 for accessibility of technology resources because they have made it a priority to make technology equally available to all students in and out of schools. One innovative way they have bridged the poverty gap is by partnering with Comcast Internet services to provide affordable Internet access to less economically advantaged students. Each school also has at least ten laptop computers that students can check out for home use. They have technology standards for all classrooms such as four modern computers in each classroom and a whiteboard, mounted projector, and sound system in each permanent classroom. Additionally, all full-time classroom teachers have a laptop computer with Internet access, an e-mail account, and storage space.

Recommendations:One recommendation is to have whiteboards, projectors, and sound systems in mobile classrooms as well as permanent classrooms. Also, only middle schools and high schools are required to have at least one computer lab. We believe that should be a requirement for elementary schools, too. Finally, since 20% of Forsyth County students are classified as economically disadvantaged, we recommend the acquisition of more stand-alone computes for students to check out for use at home.

15

Budget

Evaluation:We gave the budget section of the technology plan a 4 because it wasn’t comprehensive and technology needs are not prioritized. While the budget expectations are realistic and consistent with goals and objectives, alternatives are not provided in case the ‘pending availability of funds’ does not come through.

Recommendations:The budget needs to be prioritized so that technology decisions can easily be made if the full expected funding does not come through. Also, the budget should include alternative funding sources because they are not currently identified. Possible sources of alternative funding include Digital Wish, WeAreTeachers, and Donors Choose. Additionally, grants could be requested from Computers for Learning, Grants for Youth Programs, The Heinz Endowments- Technology for Learning, and IBM Services Grants.

Ongoing Evaluation

Evaluation:We would give the ongoing evaluation a 6. This district has set goals and clearly outlined ways to evaluate and achieve them. They are clearly listed on their three-year technology plan. Everything in this section is clear and measurable.

Recommendations:One recommendation is to explain the evaluation of increased student achievement with percentages used with the goals. Also, a percentage goal should be set for the retention of a highly qualified work force.

Design

Evaluation: We would also give the design a 6 as well. We think it was very easy to read and understand. Each section was labeled with the right heading and discussed the appropriate information related to each section.