Technology Plan Evaluation

Houston County, Georgia

Visionary Leadership in Instructional Technology

Rebecca Erwin, Charles Garrett, Rachael McGaha, Kameron Williams

February 16, 2014

2

Annotated Bibliography

Antwine, T., Embry, D., & Hobbs, G. (2011). Three year technology plan: July 1, 2011-June 30, 2014. Walton County School System.

Retrieved from http://www.walton.k12.ga.us/Portals/0/Documents/Technology/TechPlan11-14.pdf

This document outlines the current three year technology plan for the Walton County School District. A vision for technology

use is stated followed by a thorough breakdown of the current reality of technology use in the district. A gap analysis is

conducted along with goals, benchmarks and strategies aimed at addressing areas of need. The plan also discusses how the

Walton County School District communicates with stakeholders and how they market the positive role technology plays in the

school system. The technology plan concludes with the district’s AU Policy and CIPA-Compliant Internet Safety Policy. This

source will be helpful in understanding the necessary elements of a current, up-to-date technology plan. It is also a good

example of a plan that has already earned E-Rate approval.

Bevan, N., & Petrie, H. (2009). The evaluation of accessibility, usability and user experience. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), The Universal

Access Handbook Retrieved from http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9780805862805

Written by leading authorities, this handbook covers everything from methodological and technological issues to policy issues

involved in the process of achieving universal access in today’s digital society. This specific chapter covers a range of

3

evaluation methods to assist those who create technology plans. The chapter includes concepts of accessibility and usability

for target audiences including, but not limited to, people with disabilities. The methods of evaluating accessibility are outlined

in this chapter and are a helpful source for creating the accessibility component of a rubric to evaluate technology plans.

Burgstahler, PH.D., S. (2012). Equal access: Universal design of computer labs. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/

Brochures/Technology/comp.access.html

This brochure is based on work by the University of Washington’s DO-IT organization (Disabilities, Opportunities,

Internetworking, and Technology). Founder and director Sheryl Burgstahler, Ph.D., provides a checklist for making computer

labs “welcoming, accessible and usable.” Rooted in principles of universal design, this checklist has been field tested at over

twenty educational institutions across the nation, and includes information on planning, physical environments, staff, and

resources.

Educational Technology. (2009). 2010-2013 District technology planning guidance. Washington State Office of Superintendent of

Public Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/edtech/TechPlan/pubdocs/GuidanceREV12-03-09.pdf

This document provides a step-by-step guide that assists districts in creating a technology plan that is eligible for the EETT

(Enhancing Education Through Technology) grant program, as well as E-Rate approval. While it includes information specific

to 2010 application deadlines, it also thoroughly outlines the required components of a district technology plan. A definition of

each section is given and specific examples are noted. The guide includes a discussion of why each section is vital to the plan’s

4

success and how they relate to one another and other district and state required documents. The planning guide also includes a

section on self-evaluation which includes a District Technology Planning Scoring Rubric. This planning guide will be an

excellent resource for helping to better understand the required components of a technology plan.

E-Rate 2013 Funding Requests Total $4.99B. (2013). Electronic Education Report, 20(10), 5-6.

This article details the amount of E-Rate federal program funds that were requested for the 2013 fiscal year. The $4.99 billion

request was down from the $5.24 billion requested in fiscal 2012. Unfortunately, much of the requested amount will be denied

due to a $2.38 billion allocated budget. The document provides detailed insight on how the requested funds will be utilized, i.e.

$2.71 billion towards telecommunications.

Georgia Department of Education. (2014). Three-year technology plan. Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/Technology-Services/

Infrastructure/Documents/GaDOE_Technology_Plan_Rubric_2013.doc

In order to receive E-Rate and other funding, systems in Georgia must have a current, approved technology plan. The purpose

of this rubric is to help systems write a technology plan that meets E-Rate guidelines and is designed to improve

education.This document is set up not only as a rubric, but also as a template that systems can use when creating their plans.

The document provides an outline of everything that is required in a technology plan as well as guidelines and examples for

writing goals, strategies and other necessary information.

Juneau, D. (2004). E-rate technology plan self-assessment rubric for districts. Montana Office of Public Instruction. Retrieved from

5

http://opi.mt.gov/PDF/erate/TechPlanDistrict.pdf

Provided by the Montana Office of Public Instruction, this rubric is designed to evaluate a technology plan seeking approval

under the E-Rate program. An E-Rate technology plan aligns district technology use with current educational improvement

objectives. Users of the rubric are reminded of the importance of making connections between the actual physical technology

infrastructure and how it is applied to professional development and curriculum reform. The areas addressed in the rubric

include Goals and Strategies for using Telecommunications, Assessment of Telecommunication, Hardware, Software, and

Other Services, Budget, and Evaluation Process. This rubric will serve as a good reference when creating an evaluation rubric

for a district technology plan.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2000). e-Learning: Putting a world-class education at the

fingertips of all students. Retrieved from website: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/reports/e-learning.pdf

The U.S. Department of Education submitted this article in response to the first technology plan of 1996, Getting America’s

Students Ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge. The 5 goals, known as the National

Educational Technology Goals are reviewed and expanded. At this point teachers and students readily have access to various

forms of technology, now what? The U.S. Department of Education outlines how each population will be supported. The

support systems will provide up-to-date best practices to ensure successful implementation of instructional technology.

Although this article is considered dated, many of the points outlined are still considered practical: for example, “Ensure that

6

school building and facilities are modern… Strengthen our commitment to eliminating the digital divide… Ensure that all

students have equal opportunities to access and use of technology.”

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming

American education learning powered by technology. Retrieved from website: https://drive.google.com/a/

georgiasouthern.edu/?usp=folder

The National Education Technology Plan is a report developed by a technical working group of experts throughout the United

States. This is a national long-range technology plan focusing on student achievement through technology, access to

technology, and state systematic reform strategies. The purpose of this plan is to transform American education through

technology. The goals of the plan are to increase college graduates in the United States and to close achievement gaps so that

when students graduate they will become successful in college and career efforts. This resource is vital in helping state,

district, and local levels develop effective technology plans. It also helps evaluators to understand the goal of our nation in

regards to technology increasing student achievement.

Virginia Department of Education, Technology and Career Education. (2007). Technology planning summarized from an interview

with James G. Batterson. Retrieved from website: https://drive.google.com/a/georgiasouthern.edu/?usp=folder

The Virginia Department of Education provides a resource regarding technology planning in the areas of technology progress

and change. This resource summarizes an interview with James G. Batterson, the deputy director for strategic development in

7

the Advanced Planning Office at NASA Langley Research Center. Batterson recommends that a planning committee be put

into place to get input from all levels. The planning committee should escape current thinking by focusing on what

stakeholders will need in the distant future. Scenario-based planning should take place with the focus being on the future of

technology and working back to 2015. Other important factors are recognizing educational technology standards for students,

teachers, and administrators, align local technology plan to the state plan, and evaluate progress and change consistently. This

resource provides technology plan creators with a perspective of thinking and planning for the future and not just the here and

now. It helps evaluators to realize the need to assess how a technology plan provides direction and action reaching into the

future.

8

Technology Plan Rubric

Category Exceeds Expectations 4

Meets Expectations 3

Approaches Expectations

2

Misses Expectations 1

Score

Vision Statement Vision statement supports district mission. Vision statement is comprehensive and focuses on instructional learning outcomes, along with technology outcomes. Vision is clear and concise and aligns to goals and strategies in plan.

Vision statement mentions district mission, but support is unclear or vague. Vision statement focuses on how technology will improve learning, but fails to fully address instructional learning outcomes. Vision is unclear and aligns to some goals and strategies in plan.

Vision statement does not mention district mission. Vision statement focuses on technology outcomes, not instructional learning outcomes. Vision is unclear and does not align to goals and strategies in plan.

Vision statement is missing or incomplete.

9

Goals Goals are clear and concrete and are designed to meet the needs of the school system. Each goal is accompanied by a strategy for meeting the goal and the rest of the plan enables meeting all goals.

Most goals are clear and concrete and are designed to meet the needs of the school system. Most goals are accompanied by strategies for meeting the goals. Most of the plan enables meeting those goals.

Goals are either unclear or not concrete. Several goals do not have associated strategies. Several areas of the plan do not appear to support the goals.

Goals are neither clear nor concrete. Most goals do not have associated strategies. Most of the plan does not support the goals.

10

Professional Development

Research-based Professional Development programs are clearly outlined and designed to help teachers target their instructional practices toward student achievement of CCGPS. A variety of delivery options are offered including face-to-face and self-directed online and blended learning opportunities. Funding sources are provided.

Professional Development programs are clearly outlined with a variety of delivery options available. Some funding sources are provided.

Professional Development programs are offered but are not clearly outlined. Delivery options may be restricted. Minimal information regarding funding sources is provided.

No Professional Development opportunities are available and/or no funding sources are provided.

11

Assessment of services

Provides a comprehensive assessment of telecommunication services, hardware, software, and other needed services. Strategy for evaluation and modification for current and future years of plan is fully articulated. Assessment is clearly linked to technology and instructional goals.

Provides an assessment of telecommunication services, hardware, software, and other needed services. Strategy for evaluation and modification for current and future years of plan are vague and/or incomplete. Assessment is linked to technology and instructional goals.

Provides a vague and incomplete assessment of telecommunication services, hardware, software, and other needed services. Strategy for evaluation and modification for current and future years of plan is missing. Assessment does not link to technology and instructional goals.

Assessment of telecommunication services, hardware, software, and other needed services is not provided.

12

Accessibility Goals and strategies are in place to address accessibility. Systems are accessible to a full range of users, including those with disabilities. System works smoothly with assistive technology. All computer labs and classrooms equipped with technology are accessible to all users, including users with disabilities. Accessibility is considered before purchasing computer hardware and software. A system is in place to address accessibility concerns before they arise.

There are some goals and strategies in place to address accessibility. Systems are accessible to a broad range of users, including some with disabilities. System works somewhat smoothly with assistive technology. Most labs and classrooms equipped with technology are accessible to all users, including users with disabilities. Accessibility is somewhat considered when purchasing computer hardware and software. Accessibility concerns are addressed when they arise.

There are few goals and strategies in place to address accessibility. Systems are accessible to a limited range of users, including few with disabilities. System does not work smoothly with assistive technology. Few computer labs and classrooms equipped with technology are accessible to users with disabilities. Accessibility is considered after purchasing computer hardware and software. There is no system in place to address accessibility concerns; they are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

There are no goals and strategies in place to address accessibility. Systems are accessible to a narrow range of users, not including those with disabilities. System does not work with assistive technology. Computer labs and classrooms equipped with technology are not accessible to all users. Accessibility is not considered when purchasing computer hardware and software. Accessibility concerns are not addressed in a timely manner when they arise.

13

Budget Specific funding sources are provided for each strategy. Budget figures are included for every year the plan covers.

Funding sources and budget figures are provided for each strategy.

Funding sources and budget figures are identified for each strategy, but are limited to traditional sources without specific budget figures.

Funding sources and budget figures are not provided for most strategies.

Ongoing Evaluation

An ongoing, extensive evaluation process is described in detail. Data collection strategies to monitor progress for each strategy are provided. Responsibility for collecting and analyzing data on each strategy is assigned and documented. Specific methods of determining success are included. A process is in place to allow changes to the plan as new developments or opportunities arise.

An evaluation process is described. Data collection strategies to monitor progress are provided for each strategy. Responsibility for collecting and analyzing data is assigned for each strategy. Specific methods of determining success are included.

An evaluation process is described, but is incomplete. Several strategies are missing data collection strategies. Responsibility for collecting and analyzing data may not be assigned and documented for each strategy. Methods of determining success may not be included.

No evaluation process or a very weak evaluation process is provided.

14

Houston County, Georgia, Technology Plan Evaluation and Recommendations

http://houstoncs.schoolinsites.com/Download.asp?L=0&LMID=&PN=&DivisionID=&DepartmentID=&SubDepartmentID=&SubP=Documents&Act=Download&T=1&I=331555

Category Rating Score

Vision Statement

Explanation

The vision statement mentions the district’s mission, but support is unclear or vague. A vision statement should always clearly support a mission statement to connect the vision to the overall mission. Vision statement focuses on how technology will improve learning, but fails to fully address instructional learning outcomes. The vision statement should give a clear picture of the future outcomes and not focus so much on the here and now. The vision statement is unclear and aligns to some goals and strategies in plan. A vision statement should be clear and concise to motivate stakeholders and to provide them with a clear understanding of the vision.

3

15

Recommendations

The vision statement should align to state plan and support district mission. The current vision statement gives a vague connection to the district mission. The vision statement of the technology plan should be clear and concise to provide motivation, direction, and action to all stakeholders. People cannot act on something that is not clear. The vision statement does not stand out because there are several statements using various terms such as mission, belief, vision, goals, and objectives under the heading of “Vision for Technology Use”. Set the vision statement apart to make it clear. The vision statement should be based on thinking ahead to what stakeholders will need in the future. Think into the future first and then work backwards. Think of what does not exist yet, but is possible and achievable in the future. Remember that a vision statement must be feasible, and not too narrow or too broad. A good vision statement pictures the end at the beginning to give stakeholders a vision of what to work for in the future.

Goals

Explanation

The goals for the district’s three year technology plan are clearly listed at the opening of the document. These four goals are realistic and attainable. The positioning of the goals here appears to set the tone for the remainder of the document. Beginning on page seven of the document, the goals are broken down into various strategies or subtasks. Each strategy listed has a benchmark attached to it, an evaluation method, the funding source and amount, and the person(s) responsible that the strategy has been carried out. The goals address administrators, teachers, students, parents, and other stakeholders in the community. With a detailed structure like this, each strategy is being held accountable for the culmination of the listed goal.

3

16

Recommendations

Although there are four goals listed with twenty-seven strategies to ensure that they are obtained, there is not a clearly listed timetable. A timeline should be presented to ensure that these tasks are achieved in a timely fashion. There is only one reference of a date, but that was in reference to a task that was started during the 2008-2009 school year. How will they ensure that the teachers hired after the 2008 fiscal year will be successful in reaching that goal? Also, if that strategy was started during the 2008 term, why was it not completed by July 2011? How can this plan, as written, ensure that many of the tasks will be completed prior to the June 2014 deadline?

Professional Development

Explanation

The plan makes a minimal attempt to address the area of professional development. A blanket statement is made that opportunities to participate in technology related professional development classes are available, however, no programs or courses are specifically outlined. It is noted that course offerings and online class catalogs are posted three times per year, but there is no information regarding the delivery options of programs. Two goals within the plan relate to professional development and refer to staff being trained in the implementation and integration of current technology. It is stated that these will be high quality opportunities and that staff will “attain, at a minimum, intermediate proficiency levels in utilizing educational technology to enhance student achievement.” The plan fails to specify what courses will be offered and how they relate to increased student achievement. Funding sources of professional development opportunities are noted to be provided by local, state, or federal allocations. Specific sources of funding are not readily evident, though an amount of $150,000 is listed as the annual allocation in the goals section.

2

17

Recommendations

The plans should be revised to include specific opportunities for teachers and staff to partake in research-based professional development programs that are designed to target instructional practices aimed at supporting student achievement of CCGPS; in doing so, the current year and future years of the plans should be considered. A clear outline of a variety of program delivery options should be noted. More clearly define the funding sources and annual allotments for available professional learning opportunities. To further extend the productiveness of professional development, consider what data sources can be used for topic selection of programs, as well as what assessments could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs.

18

Assessment of Services

Explanation

The plan provides a comprehensive assessment of services, including a thorough breakdown of the system’s network and technology inventory survey, which outlines the number of and types of computers present in the system as well as the ratio of students per computer. The minimum standards for donated computers, of which the Houston County School System relies on, are clearly stated. An in-depth analysis of technology related tools which are in place to enhance the instructional process is present in the plan. This includes an outline of numerous types of software that are utilized in schools throughout the district and briefly notes the intended purpose for the individual programs. The plan clearly diagrams the ways in which technology is used amongst students, teachers, administrators, and parents and these uses are connected to instructional goals where appropriate. Furthermore, the plan clearly states how the application systems and technology infrastructure are in place to support the learning environment. The plan discusses the system’s goal regarding the number of modern computers per classroom, as well as a stated need to begin phasing out outdated hardware. Under the Instructional Uses of Technology Goals section, numerous strategies relate to how the system will maintain and acquire technology to support instructional goals and the integration of technology into standards-based curriculum. While some strategy evaluation methods are included, the plan fails to include a strategy for modifying current and future years of the plan.

3

19

Recommendations

While the plan has done a thorough job providing an assessment of services, it is imperative that strategies for evaluation and modification of the plan also be considered. This is a three-year plan and thus should articulate a timeline for evaluating its effectiveness over this time period. Likewise, strategies for modifying the plan if deemed necessary should also be fully addressed. It would be beneficial to consider what purchases will need to be made and at what frequency such purchases will need to occur. The technology planning committee should specifically consider the strategies, budget, and timeline for maintenance, upgrade, and support of services.

Accessibility

Explanation

The technology plan only has one goal in place to address accessibility. This one goal does not address how systems are accessible to all users, including those with disabilities. This goal does not address if systems work smoothly with assistive technology. Nor does the goal address if computer labs and classrooms are equipped with technology that is accessible to users with disabilities. There is no evidence that accessibility is considered for purchasing computer hardware and software. There is no system in place to address accessibility concerns; they are dealt with on a case-by-case basis through the evaluation method of using IEP’s to assess student’s needs for assistive technology resources.

2

20

Recommendations

The concern for accessibility is becoming more and more important in today’s digital society. In developing a technology plan the creators must work toward making systems accessible for all users, including those with disabilities. In developing a technology plan the creators must think of the full range of potential users in the beginning and not just think of the technology-literate users. If the disabled are considered too late in the developing process, it may be impossible to improve accessibility. One recommendation is to add a specific goal and strategies for accessibility. A strategy for accessibility is included under the goal, “To provide instructional documents, assessment data, and professional learning for administrators and instructional personnel”. It is unclear how the strategy, benchmark, and evaluation method are tied together or how they will improve accessibility. There is a mention of assistive technology, but no indication if the assistive technology will be supported by current systems. Equitable and easy access to effective and engaging technology resources is mentioned in the benchmark, but there is a lack of evidence to support this access.

21

Budget

Explanation

This plan barely meets the minimum requirement of having funding sources and budget figures identified. Many strategies just include some variation of “local/state/federal funds”, with no specific sources. Most strategies either specify $0 or include no budget figure. Of the twenty-seven listed strategies, only six include an actual dollar amount. Seventeen strategies indicate $0. While it is possible that some of these strategies may not involve any cost, it is difficult to accept that this many will require no funding at all.

2

Recommendations

The system could make estimates of budget figures for as many strategies as possible. To accomplish this, the system could communicate with other systems that have implemented similar strategies in order to obtain some information about projected costs. The system could also project costs for each strategy for the current year of the plan, as well as each year covered by the plan. This would help the entire system because then the system could know where and how to allocate funds, not just toward technology, but also toward any other operating areas. Additionally, the ability to plan for future expenditures in technology will help the system to obtain the optimal amount of federal funding.

22

Ongoing Evaluation

Explanation The evaluation process is not very detailed or complete and several strategies are missing data collection strategies. Methods for determining success are not included and are not tied to how the successes affect student learning. There is also nothing included in the plan to allow the person responsible for collecting the data to share the results.

2

Recommendations

A system can provide a list of goals and strategies that sound good, but if there is no way to evaluate those goals and strategies, the system may not grow and improve. A technology plan should be a living document that is continually updated and shared as formative and summative evaluations are conducted. Providing more information regarding how progress is monitored and then sharing the results obtained will help the system see how effective these goals and strategies are. Also, there should be specific methods included to determine how the technology program affects student achievement, technology literacy, and the quality of the student learning experience.