1

Technology Plan Evaluation

Gabrielle Slay

Maria Pinto

Marie Roberson

Stephanie Joyner
 2

Technology Plan Resources

Maria Pinto

DeKalb County School District Technology Plan

DeKalb County School District [Website]. (n.d.). Retrieved January 24, 2017, from

http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/tech-plan/

This is one of the technology plans used for this project. We were asked to review
different technology plans as part of this project and post an answer to the question asked by our
Professor in the corresponding forum.

Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology

Plan Update

Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan

Update (Rep.). (2017, January). Retrieved January 24, 2017, from U.S. Department of

Education website:​ ​https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

After reading the various schools’ technology plans I noticed many similarities.
Commonalities such as the plan components and the current status of technology in the different
counties were found. I wanted to see if the technology plan from the U.S Department of
Education shared similarities as well. The U.S Department of Education Technology Plan was
broad. It encompassed a lot more general information. However, the goals were similar- they
look to increase collaboration and internet access anytime, everywhere. Their goal in regards to
infrastructure is the same as the school counties’ that we read about, everyone wants faster and
more reliable internet access; however, the way the actual plan was written as far as format was
very different which led me to believe that there is no specific format for writing a technology
plan. Perhaps, just guides. This aided in the understanding of where we stand and where we are
going as far as goals for technology for our students.

Six-Step Process in Creating a Technology Plan

Six-Step Process in Creating a Technology Plan. (2014, April 11). Retrieved January 24, 2017,

from Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education:

 3

https://dese.mo.gov/quality-schools/education-technology/six-step-process-creating-techn

ology-plan

Provides a short version of all the things that are needed in order to create a technology
plan. Technology plans start with a committee. They have similar components. They need to
show current standing of technology, goals, and how the goals will be accomplished. Time span
for the plan needs to be decided. This website provides an idea of what needs to be on a
technology plan in general. Also, it mentions checking the components on the scoring guide for
the state e-rate approval which must be the reason as to why we are creating a rubric and why we
have been asked to assess one technology plan.

State Technology Planning Analysis Rubric

National Adult Education Professional Development Consortium: Technology. (n.d). ​State

Technology Planning Analysis Rubric​. Retrieved from
http://naepdc.org/resource_library/technology.html

This link provides another sample rubric to assess a technology plan. This was a great
resource because it showed a different way to score the technology plan. It shows two columns
for assessment criteria and did not use the usual points system or “good, fair, poor” category
system.

Technology Plan Rubric

Resta, P. (2005). “Technology Plan Rubric.” Retrieved from:

https://www.edb.utexas.edu/jabba-archive/it/fc_resta_courses_files/itpm/m0_6tprubric.ht
ml

This link provides a sample rubric to assess a technology plan. This was a great resource
because it provides an idea at a glance as far as what should be written in the criteria boxes of
each element of the rubric.

Gabrielle Slay

Georgia K-12 Technology Plan 2007-2012, Georgia Department of Education

 4

Georgia Department of Education. (2008, March 31). Georgia K-12 Technology Plan. Retrieved

February 3, 2017, from

http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=457F71177E0940F999EA06E8CAD1FD34&CID=19913A

F5695E61C703F330EA686F6067&rd=1&h=e8v9UhU-x4z7nIoDhjlcMuowuTNAvetUT

1dBkiBjcDY&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2farchives.doe.k12.ga.us%2fDMGetDocument.asp

x%2f2007-2012%2520Georgia%2520State%2520Technology%2520Plan.pdf%3fp%3d6

CC6799F8C1371F6B339ECB94111E7B72D7D55A7A26DF919F8013470C8510E82%2

6Type%3dD&p=DevEx,5061.1

Georgia’s Department of Education created this document as a foundation Georgia

school’s technology plan. This plan outlines specific details that should be included in every
school system in the state of Georgia. Georgia’s K-12 Technology plan is very useful for
creating guidelines for technology’s contribution to statewide goals for improving student
achievement. Common goals across the state can establish unified efforts to aid in funding,
implementation and data. Every school district in Georgia should use this as the framework for
their individual technology plans.

NCES National Center for Education Statistics, Technology in Schools. Suggestions, Tools
and Guidelines for Assessing Technology in Elementary and Secondary Education.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Technology in Schools:

Suggestions, Tools, and Guidelines for Assessing Technology in Elementary and

Secondary Education, NCES 2003–313, prepared by Tom Ogle, Morgan Branch, Bethann

Canada, Oren Christmas, John Clement, Judith Fillion, Ed Goddard, N. Blair Loudat, Tom

Purwin, Andy Rogers, Carl Schmitt, and Mike Vinson of the Technology in Schools Task

Force, National Forum on Education Statistics. Washington, DC: 2002. Retrieved

February 3, 2017, from ​https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003313

 5

The National Forum on Education Statistics created this guide to aide state and local
education systems in reviewing their technology use. The guide investigated several areas that
take part in the use of technology in schools. The areas mentioned in the document include
planning and policies, finance, equipment and infrastructure, technology applications,
maintenance and support, professional development and technology integration. These are
pertinent areas that all school districts should review often when integrating technology and
education. The most important aspect when using technology in schools is making sure that they
are fulfilling their purpose. Technology in education should enhance student learning. Reviewing
the use of technology in schools will ensure that students are getting the best of what they need.

10 Tips for School Technology Planning

M. R. (2017). 10 tips for School Technology Planning. Retrieved February 3, 2017, from

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=52

This is an article by Scholastic Administrator Magazine. The author Mickey Revenaugh

explains ten tips that will assist in school technology planning. He explains how the society has
evolved and now relies heavily on technology in almost every arena. The article expresses how
unpredictable technology can be and offers an outline to prepare. The ten tips include: Keep first
things first, sell on strategy, spend on tactics, thing open, leave room for risk, think fat, get smart
about data, invest in our wetware, keep an eye on “total cost of ownership”, share the risk, and
learn from a kid. These tips offer great advice to schools about technology planning. This article
is a great resource for input in any school.

Marie Roberson

Technology Planning

NORTON, S. S. (2013).​ TECHNOLOGY PLANNING: DESIGNING THE DIRECTION TO GET

THERE. ​Knowledge Quest, 42(1), 64-69​.

This article is written with the lense of a school librarian. It begins by discussing the
importance of the school librarian to the integration of technology and how the librarian can truly
take the reigns in a school and lead the way for successful technology which in turn will be lead
higher student achievement. It gave great insight about what details should be included in a plan,
again from a media specialist's shoes. It brought to light the intricate details of wiring and
facilities that other technology plan resources did not specifically mention. The author also
 6

discussed the backwards design when creating a plan. As teachers, we provide students with the
tools to know how we will evaluate them, and the technology plan should be no different. It
made sense that the ‘rubric’ would be created on the front end to help with check and balances
along the way. This resource would be an excellent beginning point for a new media specialist
to help guide them on their technology plan path.

Technology in Schools

Technology in Schools - Chapter 1: Technology Planning and Policies, Technology in Schools:

Suggestions, Tools, and Guidelines for Assessing Technology in Elementary and

Secondary Education. (n.d.). Retrieved January 31, 2017, from

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/tech_schools/chapter1.asp

This article takes readers through the process of technology plans. It begins truly at the
beginning by defining a technology plan and the effectiveness of a plan within a system. I also
thought the explanation between a policy and a plan would be very beneficial for systems
beginning to process, or even if they were reviewing a current plan. The chapter outlines the
steps to take depending on the development of the plan. If no plan existed there were some
categories suggested that could be included. Another important note to make is if there is already
a plan in place that the evaluating of that plan, and its effectiveness, should be reviewed often by
using data collection on the specific items.
 7

Rubric to Evaluate School System Technology Plan

Elements 1 2 3 Total

Technology It doesn’t mention Some participants The plan lists all who
Planning participants involved involved in the plan are were involved in the
Committee in the development of mentioned, but the development of the plan
the plan. group is not diverse. It and it is composed of a
is missing mixture of stakeholders
representation from ranging from students,
groups such as parents teachers, parents, district
or students. personnel, administrators,
librarians, and others. All
groups are represented.

Mission and/or Either the mission or Both mission and vision Both mission and vision
Vision vision is missing, or are present. They show are present and are
they are written with focus on student growth strongly written. Both
vague wording. and success. It mentions show focus on growth and
Explanation of using integrating technology success of students’
technology or to support 21st century academic learning,
integration of learning, but it does not leading to higher
technology to support specify how this education. Emphasis is
21st century learning technology will be of also placed on having
is not included. benefit and to whom. students develop
technological skills that
will enable them to
become competent
individuals able to work
in a digital world. It states
who will benefit and how.

Goals Goals are missing, or Goals are measurable Goals are measurable and
written without and understandable. It understandable. They
understandable or shows strategies; show strategies,
measurable goals. however, it doesn’t list benchmarks, evaluation
evaluation method for method/timeline, shows
each goal or timeline. It funding source and in
doesn’t list the funding some cases even specifies
or who will be the dollar amount. Shows
responsible for each who will be responsible
goal. Some components for each goal. Well
are missing for each written.
goal.

Professional Does not list It states that It clearly states the need
Development professional professional of professional
development needs, development is needed development as well as
and no goal for this and will be provided, the areas that need
area has been written. but no goal has been attention. The plan has a
written on the plan to written goal(s) for
 8

describe the type of professional development.

support that will be Goal(s) describes some
given, how it will be strategies and/or the type
delivered, or how it will of support offered and
help the teacher. how this will help the
teacher.

Assessment of Their plan does not Provides a section with Provides a section with
telecommunication provide a description details on current details on current
services, hardware, of the current technology available to technology available with
software, and other technologies include bandwidth/ specifics such as current
services needed available nor what speed and network bandwidth/speed
their needs are. infrastructure; current and infrastructure; current
software, hardware, software, hardware, types
types of of telecommunication,
telecommunication, and and other services. It
other services. It ​does states the gap or problem
not s​ tate the gap or they have as well as
problem they have, or explains what their needs
what their needs are for are for each in order to
each in order to improve.
improve.

Accessibility of The plan fails to The plan addresses how The plan adequately
technology specify the to make technology addresses how technology
resources technology available accessible to some will be available to all
(American with to students with students with students with disabilities.
Disabilities Act) disabilities. disabilities.
The plan fails to
specify assistive
technology available
in the district.

Budget The plan fails to The plan identifies The plan specifically
identify any funding some funding sources. listed funding sources for
sources. the entire length of the
plan.

Ongoing evaluation There is no mention It indicates that the plan It describes how the plan
of the plan being will be monitored and will be monitored and
monitored or evaluated throughout its evaluated throughout its
evaluated. duration period, but it duration period.
doesn’t describe how
this will be
accomplished.

Marketing and The plan fails to The plan indicates There is evidence of
Communication mention enhancing efforts of communication
communication in communication in throughout the department
regards to technology regards to technology to educate everyone about
integration. integration, but it technology integration
doesn’t describe how and the technology plan
 9

this would be done. for their district. It

describes how parents and
other parties are getting
information about
technology and receiving
news via social media,
emails, website, etc.

Overall The writing is vague Although the plan is The plan is well written.
Presentation and/or contains well written and Contains fewer than 5
errors. Missing contains all sections errors with no affect on
sections. Information required, the format the information presented.
is hard to find. could be improved to Cover page and table of
make sections stand out contents are present.
and make it easier to Sections are clearly
read. Some information labeled and bulleted
given is irrelevant to the making information easy
purpose of the plan. to be found. It contains
Organization of some charts or images
information can be presenting information.
improved.

Totals: 30-25= Satisfactory 24-19=Needs Improvement 18-0= Unsatisfactory

 10

Rubric to Evaluate School System Technology Plan for:

Marietta City Schools:

http://www.marietta-city.org/cms/lib07/GA01903590/Centricity/Shared/files/technology/M
CS%20Technology%20Plan.​pdf

Elements 1 2 3 Total

Technology It doesn’t mention Some participants The plan lists all who 3
Planning participants involved involved in the plan are were involved in the
Committee in the development of mentioned, but the development of the plan
the plan. group is not diverse. It and it is composed of a
is missing mixture of stakeholders
representation from ranging from students,
groups such as parents teachers, parents, district
or students. personnel, administrators,
librarians, and others. All
groups are represented.

Mission and/or Either the mission or Both mission and vision Both mission and vision 3
Vision vision is missing, or are present. They show are present and are
they are written with focus on student growth strongly written. Both
vague wording. and success. It mentions show focus on growth and
Explanation of using integrating technology success of students’
technology or to support 21st century academic learning,
integration of learning, but it does not leading to higher
technology to support specify how this education. Emphasis is
21st century learning technology will be of also placed on having
is not included. benefit and to whom. students develop
technological skills that
will enable them to
become competent
individuals able to work
in a digital world. It states
who will benefit and how.

Goals Goals are missing, or Goals are measurable Goals are measurable and 3
written without and understandable. It understandable. They
understandable or shows strategies; show strategies,
measurable goals. however, it doesn’t list benchmarks, evaluation
evaluation method for method/timeline, shows
each goal or timeline. It funding source and in
doesn’t list the funding some cases even specifies
or who will be the dollar amount. Shows
responsible for each who will be responsible
goal. Some components for each goal. Well
are missing for each written.
goal.

Professional Does not list It states that It clearly states the need 3
Development professional professional of professional
 11

development needs, development is needed development as well as

and no goal for this and will be provided, the areas that need
area has been written. but no goal has been attention. The plan has a
written on the plan to written goal(s) for
describe the type of professional development.
support that will be Goal(s) describes some
given, how it will be strategies and/or the type
delivered, or how it will of support offered and
help the teacher. how this will help the
teacher.

Assessment of Their plan does not Provides a section with Provides a section with 3
telecommunication provide a description details on current details on current
services, hardware, of the current technology available to technology available with
software, and other technologies include bandwidth/ specifics such as current
services needed available nor what speed and network bandwidth/speed
their needs are. infrastructure; current and infrastructure; current
software, hardware, software, hardware, types
types of of telecommunication,
telecommunication, and and other services. It
other services. It ​does states the gap or problem
not s​ tate the gap or they have as well as
problem they have, or explains what their needs
what their needs are for are for each in order to
each in order to improve.
improve.

Accessibility of The plan fails to The plan addresses how The plan adequately 1
technology specify the to make technology addresses how technology
resources technology available accessible to some will be available to all
(American with to students with students with students with disabilities.
Disabilities Act) disabilities. disabilities.
The plan fails to
specify assistive
technology available
in the district.

Budget The plan fails to The plan identifies The plan specifically 3
identify any funding some funding sources. listed funding sources for
sources. the entire length of the
plan.

Ongoing evaluation There is no mention It indicates that the plan It describes how the plan 3
of the plan being will be monitored and will be monitored and
monitored or evaluated throughout its evaluated throughout its
evaluated. duration period, but it duration period.
doesn’t describe how
this will be
accomplished.

Marketing and The plan fails to The plan indicates There is evidence of 2
Communication mention enhancing efforts of communication
 12

communication in communication in throughout the department

regards to technology regards to technology to educate everyone about
integration. integration, but it technology integration
doesn’t describe how and the technology plan
this would be done. for their district. It
describes how parents and
other parties are getting
information about
technology and receiving
news via social media,
emails, website, etc.

Overall The writing is vague Although the plan is The plan is well written. 3
Presentation and/or contains well written and Contains fewer than 5
errors. Missing contains all sections errors with no affect on
sections. Information required, the format the information presented.
is hard to find. could be improved to Cover page and table of
make sections stand out contents are present.
and make it easier to Sections are clearly
read. Some information labeled and bulleted
given is irrelevant to the making information easy
purpose of the plan. to be found. It contains
Organization of some charts or images
information can be presenting information.
improved.
TOTAL SCORE: 27

Totals: 30-25= Satisfactory 24-19=Needs Improvement 18-0= Unsatisfactory

Explanation for each rating:

Technology Planning Committee- ​3 points.​ It listed all whom were involved in the plan. The

group is diverse. It shows representation from different stakeholders such as principals, assistant

principals, Media Specialists, Teachers, an Instructional Technology Coach, a Professor, a Board

of Education member, the Director of Technology, the Associate Superintendent, and parents.

Students were not part of the committee specifically, but they were taken into account through

the use of student surveys.

 13

Recommendation - ​it would have been great to see a district including students on the planning

committee. Although students’ input through surveys was helpful in planning, having in-person

and immediate feedback from students could have possibly helped even more. Middle school

and high school students could give some great input.

Mission and/or Vision- ​3 points. ​Both Mission and Vision are stated within their introduction

section. Furthermore, the plan provides a Vision specific to technology use which is strongly

written. It focuses on student growth, high academic achievements, college and career readiness,

as well as mentions providing students with “technology-rich” learning experiences. It clearly

states who will be benefit and provides how the technology improvement process will occur.

They focus on 3 main areas and throughout the plan, they explain how they will support and

improve each area.

Goals-​3 points. ​As part of their vision, the plan for technology improvement was guided by 3

main areas- they have listed a major goal for each of this areas. The goals are understandable and

take into consideration employees, students, teachers, and parents. They have several

benchmarks and strategies listed. They also provided funding information for each goal to

include some specific amounts portrayed under the “SY15-SY18 Budget Illustration Chart for

SPLOST”. They provided a timeline for the goals. It states that funding will need to be evaluated

on a yearly basis which is understandable. They also have some monthly monitoring, ongoing, or

currently in place strategies. It also shows who will be responsible for each benchmark &

strategy implementation.

Recommendation - ​The timelines were provided, but no updated information was included.
 14

Professional Development​ – ​3 points​. ​As part of their process to collect data, they conducted

teacher surveys to see how teachers rated their own technology skills; which tools they felt

comfortable with and which tools they needed more training on, as well as information on how

they integrate technology with their instruction. The survey results indicated the need for some

training. The plan specified which areas they needed to focus on. Under their area of support,

they have listed as part of their goals two strategies which describes the type of support that will

be given differentiated by grade levels.

Assessment of telecommunication services, hardware, software and other services needed-

3 points.​ ​The plan has a whole section which details their current reality in regards to technology

as well as their needs for improvement. The district hired a Technology Consulting Firm to

perform an assessment on their infrastructure. Even though they mention the need for more

devices as well as internet speeds to keep up as the information content increases, they seem to

have a strong infrastructure throughout their district. It is important to note that their district is

relative small compared to other major districts. They have backup generators to enable 24/7

operations. Wireless capabilities for all their schools and facilities and their wireless speed has

sufficient bandwidth. Under the infrastructure section, the plan has a goal which has benchmarks

and strategies describing their needs and how they plan to improve in order to “provide a safe,

secure and reliable technology infrastructure”. Under their “access/ experience” section, they list

the different software that the students will utilize and some current technologies are mention;
 15

however, there’s potential for improving this section to provide a more in depth, inventory on all

the different hardware the district has.

Under their overall summary of findings for this section, the plan states ​“technology is no longer

an optional, supplemental tool. Computing devices should have greater presence and purpose

​ his confirms their efforts in trying to provide a strong

thought all Marietta City Schools”. T

infrastructure.

Accessibility of technology resources (American with Disabilities Act)-​ 1 point. ​The plan

doesn’t really address how technology will be available to ​all​ students with disabilities. The plan

briefly mentions the students with disability under the “Access/ Experience” goal, they have

indicated “identifying appropriate assistive technology for students with special needs”. With all

the laws and regulations under the No Child Left Behind, providing the same access to all is very

important. This is an area that needs improvement.

Recommendation -​ The plan should include types of assistive technology that could be

implemented to enhance the SPED department. The plan could also include how to modify

current technology to make it accessible by special needs students. Modifications to current

technology can include, but are not limited to, assistive apps, software, and types of hardware.

Although being an English Language Learner (ELL) is not considered a disability, it would have

been nice to see them mentioned in this plan being that the ELL population is growing and

there’s a big amount of ELL students in the Marietta area. Technology could certainly aid in the

acquisition of the English language.

 16

Budget- ​3 points.​ ​Although it states how some budgets will need to be evaluated on a yearly

basis, the plan describes sources of funding for each of their goals for the length of the plan. The

plan has a whole section for budget explanation with a chart that illustrates the disbursement of

funds from school year 2015 through 2018.

Ongoing evaluation- ​3 points.​ ​Aside from the timelines provided under each goal, there is a

section on this plan labeled “Metrics & monitoring” which indicates that the data is monitored

yearly and provides a link to this data. There is a chart which contains the goals, their data source

for each goal (how the plan is being evaluated), as well as columns for the yearly data.

Recommendation - ​Updating the columns with current information would allow stakeholders to

stay up-to-date with the progress of the plan.

Marketing and communication-​ ​2 points​. ​The plan mentions parents being involved with

students learning outside of the classroom and were surveyed on their opinion in regards to

BYOT as well as current technology and internet capabilities at home. Under the plan’s “Access/

Experience” section they noted the continued use of web pages to communicate with students,

parents, and the community; however, this is probably an area for improvement on this plan.

There was not specific section for the marketing and communication of this plan to parents or

community stakeholders. There was no mention of social media or emails being used. It doesn’t

provide a description on how parents and community are receiving their technology information

other than through web pages.

 17

Recommendation - ​The committee needs to be more specific with how the web pages are being

used. The committee should include a section in the plan that lays out how social media, emails,

web pages, or how other avenues of technology are being used to distribute information about

technology to stakeholders.

Overall Presentation- ​3 points. ​The plan is well written. It contained minimum errors which did

not alter the presentation of information. The format of the plan is easy to follow. It is complete

and provides details to include graphics and charts to portray information. The plan also has an

appendices section with important information to include forms required to have in order to use

technology correctly.

Recommendations for Marietta City Schools Technology Plan

Marietta City Schools has a thorough district technology plan. The format of the plan is

easy to follow with in depth details in most areas. Charts and tables are used to organize

important information and display data from surveys used to drive the development of the plan.

Our rubric gave the Marietta City Schools District Technology plan a score of 27 out of 30

possible points. A few areas need minor improvements. Improvements needed mostly consist of

more in-depth details.

The lowest scored area on the rubric is “Accessibility of Technology Resources” in

accordance with the American with Disabilities Act. The plan does not address how technology

will be available to students with disabilities. The plan briefly mentions the students with a
 18

disability under the “Access/ Experience” section that organized each of the plan’s goals.

Recommendations for improvement of this section include naming the types of assistive

technology that could be implemented or ways to modify the current technology to enhance the

SPED department. The plan could also include how to modify the current technology to make it

accessible by special needs students. Types of assistive technology that could be implemented

includes downloading assistive apps like Voice4U, software like Kurzweil 3000, and using types

of assistive hardware like Optical Character Recognition. Being more specific with types of

assistive technology would help stakeholders better understand how students with disabilities

will be accommodated.

Another weaker area of the plan is the lack of the marketing and communications section.

There is not a part of the plan that mentions the marketing and communication to parents or

community stakeholders. A platform was not included to explain how parents and the

community are receiving information about technology except through web pages. There are

many more avenues to convey information other than web pages. The committee should

consider adding a section that includes how web pages are being used to deliver information and

include other resources such as social media to involve and inform the community.