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 districts 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 todays digital society. This specific chapter covers a range of 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
3

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 Washingtons 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 plans 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.
4

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 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
5

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 Americas Students Ready for the 21
st
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 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
6

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 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.
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.

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.

8

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.

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
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
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.


9

articulated. Assessment
is clearly linked to
technology and
instructional goals.
and instructional goals.
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.



10

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.

11

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 districts 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
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.
12




Goals



Explanation

The goals for the districts 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
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?
13




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
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.

14




Assessment of
Services



Explanation

The plan provides a comprehensive assessment of services, including a thorough breakdown of the
systems 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
systems 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
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.
15




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 IEPs to assess students
needs for assistive technology resources.



2
Recommendations

The concern for accessibility is becoming more and more important in todays 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.


16




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.


17




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.