technology evaluation plan

TECHNOLOGY PLAN EVALUATION 1

Technology Plan Evaluation

Aaron T. Cleveland, Kelly DeWeese, Katherine Edwards, Richard Arenal-Mullen

FRIT 7232

Georgia Southern University


Annotated Bibliography of Resources

1. Pryor, S. (2011, November 1). CSDE Educational Technology Plan Template. Retrieved

February 3, 2015, from

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/rfp/ed616_technology_plan_template_2012_15.pdf

This resource is a thorough template developed by the Connecticut State Department of

Education to “help every school district use technology effectively” through developing a

“comprehensive technology plan.” This resource includes a template to follow, a check list page to

ensure the plan includes all the required components such as: the planning committee, vision statement,

needs assessment, seven goals, funding sources and costs, and CIPA Certification. At the end of this

template is a planning toolkit with additional resources to consult and use when developing the local

district technology plans.

2. Technology Plans and the E-Rate Program: A Primer for Schools and Libraries. (n.d.).

Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://e-ratecentral.com/applicationTips/techPlan/default.asp

The entire website serves as “guidance for schools and libraries in preparation of technology

plans.” This resource outlines the basic components all technology plans should have, which is what this

site calls the “core requirements.” These include: clear goals and realistic strategies for using

telecommunications and information technology to improve education; professional development

strategies; assessments of services, hardware, and software needed to improve education; and an

evaluation process to monitor progress towards goals and allow course corrections. The website also


provides external links to additional resources and includes appendices with examples and samples to

support the development of a technology plan.

3. Vanderlinde, R., & Braak, J. (2013). Technology planning in schools: An integrated research-

based model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), E14-E17.

This article contains the results for several studies conducted on technology planning in schools

in order to assist teachers and leaders in creating an effective technology plan. The article first clearly

distinguishes between technology planning (a verb and a process) and a technology plan (a noun and a

result). The researchers concluded that technology planning involves specific content, goes in a cyclic

process, needs collaboration among stakeholders (technology coordinator, teachers as leaders, school

team, school leaders, and community), strategies to support schools, and products that support the plan.

The article also lists several excellent references to continue researching technology plans.

4. Quillen, I. (2011). New Technology May Offer Fresh Vistas For Savings and for

Educational Benefits. Education Week, 30(16), 20-22. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from

http://library.georgiasouthern.edu/

The article discussed the different economic benefits of developing a technology plan that

implements many new developing technologies. Author Ian Quillen argued in light of the recent

economic recession, schools have sought ways of incorporating new technological trends

because of budgetary restraints. Schools have shifted away from bans on student devices and

have recently embraced them for more desired 1-to-1 computing ratio. Similar districts have

adopted cloud-based applications and services such as Google Apps and Gmail. States began to


explore open-source textbooks and online courses, which have saved significant amounts of

money, especially in resource intensive courses such as Advanced Placement. Courses in credit-

recovery have also been high in demand and the biggest rise in technology services. Digital tools

to replace aging software programs were also considered, notably Web 2.0 tools like Youtube

and Skype. The article also provided suggestions for incorporating technology for budgetary

reasons such as mobile devices, cloud computing, and distance learning.

5. Cavanagh, S. (2014). New Standards Sway Purchasing Plans; Technology, curriculum,

testing tools in the mix. Education Week, (29). Retrieved February 6, 2015 from

http://library.georgiasouthern.edu/

This article described the way school budgets, in the short-term, have significantly

changed to comply with, in particular, Common Core. Author Sean Cavanagh wrote that

potentially billions of dollars will go into improvements for curriculum, summative and

formative assessments, and teacher development. Among the those improvements, the article

cited that Common Core was instrumental in making schools, districts, and states change

budgetary focus on technological improvements. According to the article, millions of dollars

have been used to update Internet connectivity, in school districts like Toledo, Ohio. Many

districts have had to make significant budget changes to internet connectivity to give the

Common-Core tests online. Wi-fi and other technological tools have been upgraded to support

the new standards and requirements. Many different businesses have been contracted for teacher

development, much of which was to give teachers online training for the new Common Core

Standards. Some schools have elievated the financial burden by using open-source resources


such as Khan Academy. Also, new teacher-evaluation have required some states to update their

systems in order to manage the new load of usage.

6. California Community Colleges, S. C. (2000). TECHnology// Strategic Plan, 2000-2005.

The article is composed of strategic planning for various forms of technological

implementation for community colleges in California. Among the goals for the state of

California community colleges was expansion of internet connectivity, equal access for all

students in the college system, and universal design for learning - to meet the needs of all

students. Driving the need for change at the turn of the 21st century was an increased use of the

internet, employer needs for more educated and train human capital, and a rising need for a more

robust infrastructure.

Goals for the project were based off of student needs. The two goals for technology

implementation and evaluation were Student Access and Student Success. The cost for this

strategic plan would be funded through various state monies sources, federal grants, and a

substantial “infusion” of funds from colleges themselves [fee’s], as well as public and private

opportunities.

7. Developing Effective Technology Plans. (2110). Retrieved February 5, 2015 from

http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm

In this article, The National Center for Technology Planning (NCTP), covers the basics to

developing effective technology plans. It states the basic guidelines for effective planning. It

advises that plans should be short term, focus on applications versus technology, go beyond


enhancing curriculum, be tied into staff development plans, make technology part of daily cost of

doing business, be research based, and focus on a vision.

8. Laporte Community School Corporation: Three Year Technology Plan. (2010).

Retrieved February 5, 2015 from http://www.lpcsc.k12.in.us/technology/docs/technology_plan

%20.pdf

This is an example of an in depth three year technology plan for LaPorte Community

School corporation in Indiana. It proves interesting because not only does it provide an overall

plan, but it also provides an individual plan for each school in the corporation. It provides the

corporation Mission, Vision, Goals, Infrastructure, Support for Teachers and Learning, and

Telecommunications Services. Then, it continues to break down to the individual needs of each

school. It concludes with Budget and Signature pages.

9. Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan. (1996). Retrieved

February 5, 2015 from http://www2.msstate.edu/~lsa1/nctp/Guidebook.pdf

This guidebook is a constant changing document created by graduate students at

Mississippi State. The NCTP officially released this in 1996. It serves as an aide in writing a

technology plan. It provides an overview of the process to follow, as well as the criteria that

should be included in a technology plan.

10. RArenal


McLeod, S. (2015). The Challenges of Digital Leadership. Independent School, 74 (2), 50-56.

The Challenges of Digital Leadership:

While technology is great to have, it is not nearly as effective if not properly used. Many schools

use technology as a way to teach in the same, ineffective manner, just with a technological shine.

In order to get beyond the fear of new technology and teaching practices, it takes planning. In

planning, we can ensure appropriate communication and collaboration between various

stakeholders. To be truly successful when developing technology initiatives, support must be

available to teachers and students. This support can also be extended to parents who need support

at home with their children’s educational needs. A consideration for support is to look beyond

professional learning at a conference a few times a year, but rather as an on-going support

system made up of students, teachers, and administrators. By creating a support community,

various stakeholders can all help each other. While technology can be a great tool, it rarely

appears to be planned and applied appropriately. Through proper planning of communication and

support, we can help to ensure a long life for technology in the classroom.

11. RArenal

Norton, S. K. (2013). Technology Planning: Designing the direction to get there. Knowledge

Quest, 42 (1), 64-69.

Technology Planning:

When planning technology, it is not just a picture of the school, but a look at the needs of the

school as a whole—including the library. Again, a source of success in planning for technology

is the community aspect: involving stakeholders and communicating effectively. By


communicating the requirements and needs, we can more accurately develop technology plans.

To ensure thorough planning, certain criteria must be considered: funding, use, the future,

communication, professional development, evaluation, and goals. When all of these can be

planned in an appropriately thorough manner, the plan is likely to be more successful.

12. RArenal

Levin, B. L. (2013). Using Systems Thinking to Leverage Technology for School Improvement:

Lessons Learned from Award-Winning Secondary Schools/Districts. Journal Of Research On

Technology In Education (International Society For Technology In Education), 46(1), 29-51.

Using Systems Thinking:

After studying the methods of eight high-ranking schools, the research was able to pinpoint

several areas of focus for effective integration of technology. These areas are: “vision,

distributed leadership, technology planning and support, school culture, professional

development, curriculum and instructional practices, funding, and partnerships” (p. 29).

Communication was central to all of these areas. For vision, stakeholders needed to be aware of

the plans at the various stages of implementation and development. By having distributed

leadership, communication between sub-groups is significantly easier—as is management.

Leadership directly affected the student body as well by develop positive relationships and high

expectations. As was found in other articles, having a technology community to assist others in

the community proved to be highly effective. The same findings from previous articles also held

true for professional development: a few conferences are not as effective as on-going peer-led

professional development opportunities. These partnerships (tech communities, leadership roles,


stakeholder involvement) all contributed to a common goal with effective teaching practices

across a majority of the school (7 of the 8 most often cited as using strategies).

Abstract:

Based on data gathered from various educational and informational sources outlined in our

annotated bibliography, the team has studied and developed a rubric in order to evaluate the effectiveness,

thoroughness, and applicability of technology plans for both private and public educational entities. This

rubric includes the following categories: Goals; Professional Development; Planning Committee; Access

to Technology; Budget; Ongoing Evaluation; Current Reality; and Assessment of Telecommunication

Services, Hardware, Software, and Additional Services. These areas were determined to be a focal point

for the overall effectiveness of several technology plans assessed during the development of the rubric. It

can be shown that a deficiency in any of the areas will be detrimental to the overall implementation and

sustainability of a given technology plan.

The team previously studied and analyzed technology plans from rural and sub-urban counties

with a variety of available resources. With this prior-knowledge available, the team has selected a

technology plan far different from the previous: an urban school district, Fulton County. The technology

plan can be found at the following site: Fulton County Technology Plan 2012-2015. The team has used

the following rubric to assess and recommend changes for the given plan based on research gathered and

other plans assessed.

Technology Plans Rubric for Public/Private Schools

Score

Elements 0 1 2 3 4

Goals(a) No goals for technology

Discussed detailed goals





Score: 3 implementation in the following areas:universal design for instruction, 21st century learning, improvement to student/staff access of new technologies, and communication among members of the district and stakeholders

for technology implementation in ONE of the following:universal design for instruction, 21st century learning, improvement to student/staff access of new technologies, and communication among members of the district and stakeholders

for technology implementation in TWO of the following:universal design for instruction, 21st century learning, improvement to student/staff access of new technologies, and communication among members of the district and stakeholders

for technology implementation in THREE of the following:universal design for instruction, 21st century learning, improvement to student/staff access of new technologies, and communication among members of the district and stakeholders

for technology implementation in FOUR of the following:universal design for instruction, 21st century learning, improvement to student/staff access of new technologies, and communication among members of the district and stakeholders

Professional Development

Score: 2

A professional development plan is not included

No research is included to justify the need for professional development

Professional development is not aligned to district or building’s standards or goals

A plan to implement professional development is outlined, but it does NOT clearly state the following:-people responsible-specific educators who need the PD-assessment to measure and document growth-specific dates for professional development

Little to no research is included to justify the need for professional development

Professional development is mostly unrelated to the goals and standards of the district; no clear connection is made between PD and goals/standards

A plan to implement professional development is outlined, but is is missing most of the following:- people responsible-technology being trained-specific educators who are supported by the plan-dates for each portion of

Some research is included to justify the need for professional development

Professional development is aligned to some of the district and/or building’s standards and goals; some professional development is unrelated to the goals and standards

A plan to implement professional development is outlined, including some of the following:- people responsible-technology being trained-specific educators who are supported by the plan

Research is included to justify the need for professional development;

Professional Development is aligned to district and/or building’s standards and goals and clear references are made to them

A specific plan to implement professional development is outlined, including ALL of the following:- people responsible-technology being trained-specific educators who are supported by the plan-dates for each portion of development-assessment


Professional Development plan is broad and not specific to goals, schools, or technology

development-assessment measures to document professional growth-funding needs

-dates for each portion of development-assessment measures to document professional growth-funding needs

measures to document professional growth-funding needs

Planning Committee

Score: 3

There was no planning committee to develop the technology plan.

Committee is missing representation from several stakeholder groups

Plan only has ONE of the following:-description of each member’s role-A timeline of when committee met-Minutes from each meeting

Committee has unequal representation from each group of stakeholders

Plan only has TWO of the following:-description of each member’s role-A timeline of when committee met-Minutes from each meeting

Committee has unequal representation from each group of stakeholders

Plan only has THREE of the following:-description of each member’s role-A timeline of when committee met-Minutes from each meeting

Committee represents all stakeholders equally, included, but not limited to: parents, educators, students, community members, and school leaders.

A clear description of each committee member’s job is included

Includes a timeline of when committee met

Detailed minutes from each planning meeting is included

Access to Technology

Score: 4

No component of the plan discussed strategies for providing technology access for students and/or teachers.

The technology plan indicates unrealistic strategies for providing access for ALL students and/or teachers.

The technology plan somewhat indicates academic achievement, including technology literacy, of some students will be improved, OR teacher capacity to

The technology plan clearly indicates ONE of the following: academic achievement, including technology literacy, of ALL students will be improved, OR

The technology plan indicates ALL of the following: academic achievement, including technology literacy, of ALL students will be improved, and teacher


integrate technology effectively into curriculum and instruction will be improved.

teacher capacity to integrate technology effectively into curriculum and instruction will be improved.

capacity to integrate technology effectively into curriculum and instruction will be improved.

Budget

Score: 4

No component of the technology plan discussed monetary strategies, funds, or savings used to implement 1:1 computer to student ratio, Web 2.0 services, hardware & technological improvements, student improvement services(b).

Technology plan detailed monetary strategies, funds, or savings used to implement One of the following: 1:1 computer to student ratio, Web 2.0 services, hardware & technological improvements, student improvement services(b).

Technology plan detailed monetary strategies, funds, or savings used to implement TWO of the following: 1:1 computer to student ratio, Web 2.0 services, hardware & technological improvements, student improvement services(b).

Technology plan detailed monetary strategies, funds, or savings used to implement THREE of the following: 1:1 computer to student ratio, Web 2.0 services, hardware & technological improvements, student improvement services(b).

Technology plan detailed monetary strategies, funds, or savings used to implement FOUR of the following: 1:1 computer to student ratio, Web 2.0 services, hardware & technological improvements, student improvement services(b).

Ongoing Evaluation

Score: 4

The plan does not evaluate the following: data collection (quantitative and qualitative), goals and indicators of achievement, integration into curriculum, process as ongoing

The plan evaluates ONE of the following: data collection (quantitative and qualitative), goals and indicators of achievement, integration into curriculum, process as ongoing

The plan evaluates TWO of the following: data collection (quantitative and qualitative), goals and indicators of achievement, integration into curriculum, process as ongoing

The plan evaluates THREE of the following: data collection (quantitative and qualitative), goals and indicators of achievement, integration into curriculum, process as ongoing

The plan evaluates ALL of the following: data collection (quantitative and qualitative), goals and indicators of achievement, integration into curriculum, process as ongoing

Current Reality

Score: 4

No portion of the technology plan discusses the current reality of the

Technology Plan addresses one (1) of the following in detail: the

Technology Plan addresses two (2) of the following in detail: the

Technology Plan addresses three (3) of the following in detail: the

Technology Plan addresses all (4) of the following in detail: the


learning environment.

system’s technology access/readiness, instructional/administrative uses, or gap analysis of needs.

system’s technology access/readiness, instructional/administrative uses, or gap analysis of needs.

system’s technology access/readiness, instructional/administrative/community uses, or gap analysis of needs based on past plans.

system’s technology access/readiness, instructional/administrative/community uses of technology, and gap analysis of needs based on previous plans and current tech.

Assessment of Telecommun-

ication services,

Hardware, Software, and

Other Services

Score: 4

No portion of the technology plan discusses the infrastructure of the system, including: telecommunication, hardware, software, and networking.

Technology plan references telecommunication, hardware, software, or networking: details provided are lacking depth or plan only covers one (1) of the four (4) areas.

Technology plan references telecommunication, hardware, software, or networking: details are provided, but lack clarity in inventory or plan only covers two (2) of the four (4) areas.

Technology plan references telecommunication, hardware, software, or networking: details provided are appropriate and inventoried, but leave out areas of learning community or plan only covers three (3) of the four (4) areas.

Technology plan references telecommunication, hardware, software, and networking: details provided are thorough, inventoried, and apply to all aspects of learning community for all four (4) areas.

(a) - discretion of evaluator. If goals are not detailed in a practical way or detailed way, do not award points for goals element.

(b) - Student improvement services include reinforcements for instructional purposes, subscription-web-based services for students/teachers, and

other technology related improvements for students not mentioned.

Goals: This portion of the rubric was determined by research on the technology plans and goals for community colleges in California from 2000-

2005. Components of the major goals and initiatives are parallel to the goals that many school districts have had in the past, present, and future.

Ultimately, the components derived from that study were used for scoring purposes in this rubric.

sarenal, 02/16/15,

I went in and rearranged the explanations so that they match up with our rubric in terms of order. I also added the title "Abstract" to the intro and a references list to the end of the document--as APA requires. I can't think of any other changes that need to be made. Now, it is just a matter of downloading and submitting the file individually.


Budget: This element was created and determined through research on articles written for savings and purchasing plans for schools, districts and

states. The major components of these articles dealt with the need for 1:1 computing, Web 2.0 tools, hardware and technological improvements,

and student improvement services.

Planning Committee: Planning for a technology plan is essential to the success of the implementation. It starts early, involves input from all

stakeholders (parents, school personnel, district personnel, administrators, teachers, students, and community members) , and uses forums and

meetings to collect and analyze data. Effective technology plans document the timeline, agendas, committees, participants, and outcomes of all

meetings.

Professional Learning: Technology is used to support instruction and enhance student learning. In order for technology to do its job, educators

must be effectively trained on how to use the district’s technology in the classroom. Connecticut’s state school district outlines effective

professional development plans within a technology plan as needing to have a lot of specificity: people assigned to developing and implementing

the professional learning, assessments to document growth and show how it is impacting student learning, and a timeline for rolling out

professional development.

Current Reality: The basis of the current reality is to provide an overview of the system’s technology standings. This should include the

instructional uses of technology, administrative uses of technology, and the parent/community uses and exposure. The system should also include

a general view of the access to and readiness for technology in the educational environment. Lastly, and most importantly, a gap analysis must be

provided. The gap analysis provides an evaluation of the previous plan’s successes and failures--which can then be applied to the current plan in

order to prevent further failures.

Assessment of Telecommunication…: An adequate view of the system’s telecommunication systems is based on more than just communication

through phone lines or VoIP systems. The plan should include detailed information regarding communications, hardware supplies, software

licenses, and networking status/capabilities. The networking status/capabilities is especially important because it is the basis for the transfer of

information between stakeholders (educators, administration, students, parents, and community members) and the schools

Rubric Assessment of Fulton County Schools’ 3 Year Technology Plan:

Goals: 3

The Fulton County School District’s technology plans shares goals in the areas of 21st

century learning, improvement of access to technologies, and increased communication to


members of the district as well as stakeholders. The district failed to mention implementation of

strategies or goals for universal design for learning.

Significant information was provided to improve 21st century learning in regards to

different technologies and programs to be used by teachers, staff, and administrators with the

ultimate goal of improving student learning. Among the programs and technologies were digital

repositories for teacher/students/administrators, the use of online Web 2.0 tools, and mobile

device access (p.54). According to the technology plan, the purpose of the 21st Century learning

tools was to give access to learners for responsible problem solving and creation of knowledge

(p.24).

Improvement to access of technologies were directed at replacing outdated computers,

increasing and improving capabilities of the network infrastructure, and school improvements for

access to collaborative tool as well as supports. The increased production levels of the network

were vital to the implementation of the technology plan.

Lastly, the increased communication with with students, parents, direct members of the

district, and stakeholders were also discussed in detail. Among the changes were improved

methods of assessment and feedback, increased opportunities for parents to learn how to use

technology in the district, increased accessibility for all stakeholders, and signing parents up to

instant information on student absences, grades, and assignments (p.47). Other goals of

implementation of communication included blogs, wiki’s, and other Web 2.0 tools (p.65).

When the school district creates a new technology plan, an area of focus needs to be

specific ways the plan will enable multiple levels, methods, and types of learning. In order for

equal accessibility to completely take place, the district must be give students of all abilities

levels equal access to learn with new and emerging technologies.


Professional Development: 2

Fulton County states that their Information Technology works closely with their

Professional Learning Department “to ensure all professional development initiatives for

technology are designed, developed, and delivered using scientific and/or evidence based best-

practices” (90). The plan shares that they consult research from National Staff Development

Council, American Society for Curriculum and Development, and the International Society for

Technology in Education to create their best practices guidelines, but the guidelines are nowhere

to be found in the plan. In their summary, it is also stated that “all professional learning for

technology must have a direct relationship to improving teaching and learning” (91), and that

training should be “offered in multiple modalities” (91). Research is clearly involved in

professional development, but it is not justifying the need for professional development; it is

used to develop it properly.

People who are responsible for professional development is clearly identified, and those

people are a part of the IT Advisory Council, chaired by the district’s technology director.. The

names and district roles of the people involved are listed in Appendix F, and those people

include a variety of school and district level personnel: administrators, counselors, fine arts

teachers, assistant principals, STEM district leader, and teachers. Other than that, though, the

plan is lacking in specificity. The professional development outlined in the technology plan is

broad and describes goals of professional development in technology, but it is lacking in

outlining specific technology to train educators on, specific educators who need the professional

development, beginning and ending dates of professional development initiatives, assessment

measures to document the professional growth of educators, and the funding needs of



As Fulton County develops their next technology plan, they need to consider shifting

their professional development portion from a broad overview of research, methods, and

programs to a specific plan justified by research that maps out the professional development.

The next plan should include specific time periods for different professional development

initiatives, assessment and documentation to show how the professional development impacted

teacher performance or student performance, members of the IT Committee who develop and

deliver each professional learning initiative, and specific teachers who will receive the


Planning Committee: 3

Careful planning was implemented to develop the system’s technology plan, though it is

not thoroughly documented. It is clearly evidence that planning was an extensive process that

involved a wide variety of stakeholders, stating that a “careful analysis of local demographics”

(18) was implemented “to include participation from all groups” (18). The planning process for

the 2012-2015 plan began in the fall of 2010 and lasted 18 months, coinciding with the district’s

charter initiative. The groups involved in the planning portion are listed in Appendix E of the

plan, and they include: Student, parent, community, cluster, teacher, and principal advisory

councils, administrative staff and administrators’ meetings, community forums, student focus

groups, and town halls. At the conclusion of all these meetings, a Technology Think Tank and

Technology Strategic Planning Team organized all the input into specific initiatives outlined in

the technology plan. Appendix C shares the members of the Technology Think Tank (including

their roles in the district) who carefully analyzed the data from the meetings.


In assessing the plan, the rubric indicates that the planning portion of the technology plan

is lacking some important parts. First, even though it states that the planning began in 2010 and

lasted for 18 months, there is no timeline that shows when each meeting was. Minutes of the

meetings are also not included in the technology plans, so we do not know what was discussed

and accomplished at each meeting held throughout those 18 months. Several groups are listed in

assisting with planning, and it is noted that participation from all groups was considered, but

there is no list of committee members or those in attendance at the community forums to prove

that all demographics of the system were equally represented. As Fulton County develops their

next technology plan, they should consider including a timeline of specific meeting dates and

times, and they should also include a list of all involved in the planning process through sign-in

sheets at community forums and all council and group meetings. Minutes from those meetings

should also be provided to show policies and ideas discussed and how work was divided among

members.

Access To Technology: 4

There is a clear description of the student technology literacy skills needs that should be

targeted The current level of students’ school-based experience with essential technology

literacy skills are defined by the QCC Technology Integration Standards is estimated.

Definitions of technology literacy skills are well aligned to the QCC Technology Integration

Standards. Student needs are based on actual assessments of the implementation of technology

integration standards into local curriculum or actual student technology literacy performances at

school


The Schools scoring in the lower quadrants are targeted for professional learning in 2012-

2013 school year to improve performance. The Instructional Technology department maintains a

website with supportive materials and links to resources that can be used at the local level to

support technology literacy.

The Fulton County Instructional Technology department in collaboration with

Curriculum and Instruction is working to enhance the technology literacy of Fulton County

students by developing curriculum based lessons that align vertically with ISTE NETS-S. The

NETS- S serve as their guide for improved teaching and learning, and will help them measure

proficiency while setting desired goals for the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to succeed

in a digital world

The following initiatives, implemented over the next three years, will ensure that all

students are engaged in learning that enables them to reach their full potential for college and

career readiness. 1. Continuous Achievement and customized learning 2. Effective Assessment

of Learning and Feedback 3. Tailored Instruction and Supports 4. Challenging and Innovative

Instruction 5. Application of Learning

Budget: 4

Each in the Fulton County School District Technology Plan is detailed with funding

sources and the expenses distribution. Most notably, the largest source of funding for the

technology plan comes from an approved Special Option Local Sales Tax (SPLOST) “to

technology in order to sustain and build upon technology for equitable distribution of technology

throughout the System,” (p.92). All goals in the Technology Plan are evaluated with funding


sources in Section VIII. Through the SPLOST, many technology initiatives are incorporated,

which included the criteria in the Public/Private School technology plan rubric.

The district explored 1:1 computing improvements through student in the plan through

mobile devices. Students would be encouraged to bring devices with the capabilities needed to

learn and create knowledge. The 1:1 initiative would also be supported by network and school

network infrastructure improvements. Each of the infrastructure improvements would be funded

in large part with SPLOST monies and would have oversight from the Director of IT Program

Management. As part of the technological initiative, E-Readers would be provided to students in

middle/high school core academic areas through 2016. The funds provided this aspect of the plan

would come from SPLOST IV and E-Rate dollars.

Web 2.0 features were defined in the Technology Plan as blogs, wikis, and discussion

boards. The funding for the implementation of this criteria would be sources from E-Rate dollars

(based on student population estimates) as well as the SPLOST IV monies. Although there

weren’t specifics on the amount of SPLOST dollars, the E-rate funding estimates ranged from

$189,000 to $194,000 (p.66-67).

Computer hardware and infrastructure upgrades were to be carried on throughout the

entirety of the technology plans and subsequent years (2016 & 2017) with the bulk of the

funding for these improvements to come from SPLOST IV monies with oversight from the

Director of IT Program Management.

The Technology Plan covered funding for improved student services through a

benchmark project called Student Computer Virtualization. This project called for increased

student engagement and learning through the extension of classroom using technological

resources. Furthermore, this plan was meant to increase student individualization through


project-based-learning (p.83). The funding of this student improvement initiative would be

through the SPLOST IV with oversight from the Director of IT Program Management.

Although the budget for this Technology Plan was detailed and easily discernible, a

recommendation for future technology plans should include specifics about the projects.

Specifics as to how the mobile devices, what Web 2.0 tools, plans for bidding contracts for

hardware/infrastructure improvements, as well as specifics on the software used for student

virtualization were missing from the plan. These components are necessary for an understanding

of the impact these budgetary items would have. Simply stating the technological improvement

without including specifics as to the programs, software, and tools that could potentially be used

could leave stakeholders as well as members of the district left outside the possibility of

evaluating and analyzing these budgetary projects for worth, value, and efficiency.

Ongoing Evaluation: 4

Each goal is accompanied by benchmarks that serve as tangible indicators of successful

progress toward the goal completion. Benchmarks are established to show intermediate progress

as well as goal completion. Data collection strategies to monitor progress for each technology

GOAL/BENCHMARK are provided and goes beyond those areas required, such as quality of the

learning experience or other educational variable. Data collection includes a broad base of

stakeholders. Many representatives from these groups are responsible for actual data collection

and analysis. Multiple methods of data collection are used. Data collection is Systematic and

produces highly credible results. Data collection is manageable and reasonable. Responsibility

for collecting and analyzing data on each technology GOAL/BENCHMARK is assigned and

documented. Evaluation Plan includes specific methods to determine how technology program


successes affect (1) Student achievement, (2) student technology literacy; and (3) the quality of

students’ learning experiences

Current Reality: 4

In this area, Fulton County excelled in providing detailed information and uses of

technology in the school systems. The section begins with an explanation of data collection

sources and methods; the district also provided diagrams and charts in the appendix for these

points. Detailed information is provided about the number of computers (type and use), the

network statistics (funding, providers, speeds, and networking), resources available (video

conferencing, software, virtual school, and others), and the ways in which the technology

available can be accessed by various stakeholders (p. 42-45). The Gaps Analysis provided is very

detailed and thorough with documentation provided based on studies and surveys conducted.

However, the final points that apply the findings of the analysis remained lacking. Projects are

provided with funding estimates, but the means (“how” and “when”) are not provided--only the

“what” is explicitly given, while the “why” is inherent in the gaps themselves (p. 52-54).

Assessment of Telecommunication services, Hardware, Software, and Other Services: 4

The information required to excel in this area is far-reaching, but Fulton County was able

to provide the information in a detailed and elaborate way. The information is found in several

separate sections, but it is present within the file itself. The inventory of hardware, details of

software available, and networking information can all be found within the section detailing the

current reality of the school (p. 42-44). Telecommunication is mentioned in several places, but is


focused on in the current reality as well as the marketing section (p. 12).. Not only did Fulton

County provide adequate information for this section, they were also able to go above-and-

beyond by addressing the marketing strategies that will be used to ensure that the school is

properly handled in the public sector (p. 96-97).


References

Avossa, R. (2012). Three Year Technology Plan, 2012-2015. Fulton County Schools.

California Community Colleges, S. C. (2000). TECHnology// Strategic Plan, 2000-2005.

Cavanagh, S. (2014). New Standards Sway Purchasing Plans; Technology, curriculum, testing tools in the mix. Education Week, (29). Retrieved February 6, 2015 from http://library.georgiasouthern.edu/

Developing Effective Technology Plans. (2110). Retrieved February 5, 2015 from http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm

Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan. (1996). Retrieved February 5, 2015 from http://www2.msstate.edu/~lsa1/nctp/Guidebook.pdf

Laporte Community School Corporation: Three Year Technology Plan. (2010). Retrieved February 5, 2015 from http://www.lpcsc.k12.in.us/technology/docs/technology_plan%20.pdf

Levin, B. L. (2013). Using Systems Thinking to Leverage Technology for School Improvement: Lessons Learned from Award-Winning Secondary Schools/Districts. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education (International Society For Technology In Education), 46(1), 29-51.

McLeod, S. (2015). The Challenges of Digital Leadership. Independent School, 74 (2), 50-56.

Norton, S. K. (2013). Technology Planning: Designing the direction to get there. Knowledge Quest, 42 (1), 64-69.

Pryor, S. (2011, November 1). CSDE Educational Technology Plan Template. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/rfp/ed616_technology_plan_template_2012_15.pdf

Quillen, I. (2011). New Technology May Offer Fresh Vistas For Savings and for Educational Benefits. Education Week, 30(16), 20-22. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from http://library.georgiasouthern.edu/

Technology Plans and the E-Rate Program: A Primer for Schools and Libraries. (n.d.). Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://e-ratecentral.com/applicationTips/techPlan/default.asp

Vanderlinde, R., & Braak, J. (2013). Technology planning in schools: An integrated research-based model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), E14-E17.

technology evaluation plan

Documents

technology planning

new technology

information technology

effective technology

comprehensive technology

tech plan

planning committee

planning toolkit