Technology Plan Evaluation

Coweta County Schools

Authors:
Lindsay Murray
Zporal Tyson-Williams
Mike Vigilant
Kaitlin Ward

Annotated Resources
Anderson, L. (1996). K-12 Technology Planning at State, District, and Local Levels.
ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED393448.pdf
This resource provides some great guiding information on creating a technology
plan, and what a plan should include. It contains information specifically for
creating technology plans for public schools. Since we are now or have been in K-12
schools in some capacity, I find this particularly relevant to our project. It focuses
on key elements of planning such as who is included, timelines, monitoring,
delegation of responsibilities and evaluation. There is further information on how
planning is different at the state, district, and local levels. Included as well are the
similarities or areas where the plans dovetail and come together. In the final
sections, the author addresses the realities of planning such as the financial,
technical, architectural, legal and human capital aspects of the endeavor. The
conclusion is that greatest benefit to a technology plan is the participants
accepting their responsibilities, working on a timeline, and willingness to be open
and share information.

Florida Department of Education. Local School District Educational Technology

Planning. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/bii/Instruct_Tech/Planning/local.asp
This resource contains a very nice Essential guide to ensuring a districts
technology plan is complete. This document outlines the states requirements and
what it takes to create an acceptable technology plan. This information offers
valuable insight into the way a state analyzes its districts technology plans.
Knowing how technology plans are scored by a state may help in creating a more
meaningful rubric, by making sure our evaluation criteria aligns with what states
commonly use.

Georgia Department of Education. Georgia K-12 Technology Plan. Retrieved from

http://archives.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/2007-2012%20Georgia
%20State%20Technology%20Plan.pdf?
p=6CC6799F8C1371F6B339ECB94111E7B72D7D55A7A26DF919F8013470C8510E8
2&Type=D
Since we are going to be evaluating a technology plan from a school system already
in Georgia, understanding the statewide technology plan can be key to creating a
meaningful evaluation. Georgias technology plan is very comprehensive and
includes a very detailed section on Georgias Current Reality and Needs
Assessment. Georgias technology goals are also included. As this is likely the
document that most influences the evaluation of local system technology plans,
understanding Georgias own goals is critical.

Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education (April 1, 2013). SixStep Process in Creating a Technology Plan. Retrieved from
http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/instrtech/techplan/gettingstarted.htm
This resource is from Missouri elementary and secondary schools; it was updated
last year and can be used to guide our evaluation of technology plans from any
district. It provides information on the six-step process for developing a technology
plan: planning and developing the committee, creating a mission statement,
analyzing current technology and usage data, developing goals and objectives,
developing and implementing timelines and action plans, and monitoring and
evaluating the technology plan. This resource is especially useful because it
provides information for the group on what a technology plan is, who is involved in
creating the plan, and how and what to evaluate on a technology plan. Also listed
are technology focus area suggestions which include teacher preparation and
delivery, communication processes, and technical support. This resource is also
helpful because it provides examples of the dissemination step of the development
of a technology plan, guiding questions for evaluating plans, a scoring guide, and
external resources for more information on technology plan development.

Northwest Educational Technology Consortium (2005). What is Program Evaluation?

Retrieved from http://www.netc.org/planning/eval/
A concise guide to the specific challenges and opportunities of evaluating
technology plans. Contains a good list of empowering uses that explains what
technology is to be used for in a positive manner. Also contains a brief overview of a
technology evaluation process, including the different steps. Good for approaching
analysis of technology plans from a program evaluation standpoint. This item may
help with areas of the rubric designed to locate and address needs, such as
infrastructure.

Norton, S. (2013). Technology Planning: Designing the Direction to Get There.

Knowledge Quest, 42(1), 64-69.
This resource explains how the library is connected to the creation of a technology
plan and the reasons why a technology plan is so important to a school district. The
author breaks up the articles into seven different parts which include: community of
practice, technology plan, goals and strategies, professional development, budget,
assessment and evaluation, and influence for leadership. We should consider these
parts when creating a rubric for evaluation of a technology plan. Planning for
educational technology is a social process, and we must make sure the social
issues surrounding technology use are addressed.

Overbay, A., Mollete, M., & Vasu E. S. (2011). A Technology Plan that Works.
Educational Leadership, 68 (5), 56-59. Retrieved From

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb11/vol68/num05/ATechnology-Plan-That-Works.aspx
The article was done by several evaluators for the Institute of Educational
Innovation. It provides five lessons on what to do and what not to do when applying
important technology initiatives in a school or district. It is relevant to our project
because it provides key information for the professional development portion of our
rubric. It provides good idea of what to look for and how it should be organized. It
also provides a brief overview of techniques schools can apply to keep their
technology initiatives relevant to new employees.

Ritzhaupt, A. D., Hohlfeld, T. N., Barron, A. E., Kemker, K. (2008). Trends in

Technology Planning and Funding in Florida K-12 Public Schools. International
Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 3 (8), 1-17. Retrieved from
http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/view/146
Budget, accessibility, and goals are a huge aspects of a technology plan. This article
has great information about how and why technology plans and funding should be
managed. It is a research study done to investigate the trends in technology
planning and funding in Florida K-12 schools. Researchers looked at findings from
several aspects of technology planning including frequency of revisions, alignment
with other district plans and initiatives, the primary focus of the technology plans,
and stakeholders on the technology planning committees. The authors found that
schools were revising their technology plans more often and that districts are
involving teachers, parents, and students in planning more. There also findings that
existing stakeholders were investing more time and effort to the plans. After
reviewing the findings, the researchers ended the article by making several
recommendations for improvements. Studying trends in technology planning will
help us decide on evaluation categories for our rubric.

Redish, T., & Williamson, J (2009). ISTEs Technology Facilitation and Leadership
Standards. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/images/excerpts/TLPREP-excerpt.pdf
ISTE is a premier source of information on technology integration and technology
staff development. This document explores levels of technology integration, from
simple awareness to in-depth use and refinement. The levels of technology
integration on pages 35 and 36 would make a good basis for the staff development
portion of the rubric. Alignment of technology and integration and related staff
development to ISTEs Standards is a common best practice; understanding these
standards can help create a more useful rubric.

U.S. Department of Education (November 2010. Transforming American Education:

Learning Powered by Technology. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED512681

This resource is valuable when evaluating technology plans because it is directly

from the National Department of Education; it should operate as an umbrella for
district technology plans. This document describes todays learners and their
immersion in technology and includes the intent of the plan and lists the priorities
and goals. The overall goal is to transform American education and close
achievement gaps. It addresses the infrastructure of the plan and stresses the
importance of technology and the fact that it is available to learners at all times.
The resource also discusses goals and recommendations for engaging students,
assessing progress and data, and teaching effectively. A unique feature of this
resource is a concept map of what learning with technology should look like
according to the Department of Education followed by information on the who,
what, where, when, why, and how students learn. This document is a strong
resource because the group will be able to compare individual district technology
plans to what the national standard of what technology plans are supposed to set as
goals, address, and include as well as strategies for engaging students, models of
learning, and more than one hundred pages of other information about proper
technology plans.

Vanderlinde, R., & Van Braak, J. (2013). Technology planning in schools: An

integrated research-based model. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 44(1),
E14-E17. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01321.
This resource is an important guide because it guides us through the different steps
that a planning committee goes through to complete a plan. It also talks about a
different model that can be used when creating a plan. The TPS model pulls multiple
studies together from technology planning throughout the years. This will be helpful
because we will be able to see how technology planning has evolved throughout the
years. It also has a helpful visual that brings all the components together of what
goes into a technology plan.

Evaluation Rubric
This blank rubric represents the document our group collaboratively created for
evaluation of a school systems technology plan.

Vision/Mission
Statements

Insufficient (0
points)
The plan contains
no vision or
mission
statement(s) on
technology use or
such statements
are overly vague
as to be unclear.

Sufficient (1
point)
The plan contains
a vision or mission
statement(s) on
technology use.
Such statements
are clearly stated
and are easily
understood.

Exceptional (2
points)
The plan contains
a vision or mission
statement(s) on
technology use.
Such statements
are clearly stated
and contain a
specific vision or
mission for the
district.

Goals

The plans goals

are not included or
are so confusing
as to be
unreadable.

The plans goals

are included and
are clearly written.
Goals are basic.

Professional
Development

No or limited
professional
development is
included in the
plan. The plan
does not require
continuing
education in
technology by
professionals in
the district.

Infrastructure

The plan includes

only a top-level
overview of the
status of
infrastructure in
the district. No
plans for
maintenance or
expansion of the
technology
infrastructure are
included.

Accessibility

The plan does not

address
accessibility or
inadequately
describe the
districts plans to
ensure equal
access to
technology.

Some professional
development is
included in the
plan. The plan will
require continuing
education in
technology by
specific
professionals in
the district, but
not all uses in the
district are
included.
The plan includes
an overview of the
districts
infrastructure.
Plans for
maintenance and
expansion of the
infrastructure are
included, but they
are basic and lack
specific
information such
as goals and
deadlines.
The plan
addresses
accessibility with
clear steps to
address issues and
ensure equal
access to
technology.

The plans goals

are included and
are clearly written.
Goals are very
detailed and
explanatory and
contain exact
conditions
necessary for
meeting the goal.
Professional
development is
clearly and
thoroughly
included in the
plan. Most
professionals will
be compelled by
the plan to receive
continuing
education in
technology.
The plan includes
an overview of the
districts
infrastructure.
Plans for
maintenance and
expansion of the
infrastructure are
included and are
specific, including
details such as
goals and
deadlines.
The plan
addresses
accessibility in
detail. Plans to
ensure equal
access are written
in detail, with clear
action steps and
responsibility
detailed in the

Budget

The plan does not

include budget
information, or
includes only an
overview. Budget
goals do not align
to plan goals or no
alignment
information is
given.

The plan includes

a budget with onetime future
expenditures as
well as recurring
payments
detailed.

Continuous
Improvement

The plan does not

include a way to
provide for
continuous
evaluation and
improvement.

The plan includes

continuous
evaluation and
improvement, but
only basic
information is
included.
Continuous
improvement is
cursory and may
occur only at an
overview level.

plan.
The plan includes
a budget with onetime future
expenditures as
well as recurring
payments
detailed. Budget
items align to the
goals of the plan.
Expected
outcomes are
stated, as well as
responsibility for
individual items.
The plan includes
ways to provide
for continuous
evaluation and
improvement that
are evident across
all areas of the
plan.
Improvement
strategies are
clearly stated and
detailed, including
timelines and
ways the results
will impact future
technology
decisions.

A successful plan will earn a minimum of 11 out of

14 points, with no areas rated as Insufficient.
Selected Plan
Our group chose to evaluate the Three-Year Technology Plan currently in place in the
Coweta County School System, headquartered in Newnan, Georgia. The plan is
effective until June 30, 2014. Coweta Countys plan may be viewed at
http://www.cowetaschools.org/images/TechSvcs/techplan_2011_2014.pdf

Completed Rubric
Below is the rubric above, representing our evaluation of Coweta Countys plan.
Bold text represents the groups evaluation of each criteria.

Insufficient (0
points)
The plan contains
no vision or
mission
statement(s) on
technology use or
such statements
are overly vague
as to be unclear.

Sufficient (1
point)
The plan contains
a vision or mission
statement(s) on
technology use.
Such statements
are clearly stated
and are easily
understood.

Goals

The plans goals

are not included or
are so confusing
as to be
unreadable.

The plans goals

are included and
are clearly written.
Goals are basic.

Professional
Development

No or limited
professional
development is
included in the
plan. The plan
does not require
continuing
education in
technology by
professionals in
the district.

Infrastructure

The plan includes

only a top-level
overview of the
status of

Some
professional
development is
included in the
plan. The plan
will require
continuing
education in
technology by
specific
professionals in
the district, but
not all uses in
the district are
included.
The plan includes
an overview of the
districts
infrastructure.

Vision/Mission
Statements

Exceptional (2
points)
The plan
contains a vision
or mission
statement(s) on
technology use.
Such statements
are clearly
stated and
contain a
specific vision or
mission for the
district.
The plans goals
are included and
are clearly
written. Goals
are very
detailed and
explanatory and
contain exact
conditions
necessary for
meeting the
goal.
Professional
development is
clearly and
thoroughly
included in the
plan. Most
professionals will
be compelled by
the plan to receive
continuing
education in
technology.

The plan
includes an
overview of the
districts

infrastructure in
the district. No
plans for
maintenance or
expansion of the
technology
infrastructure are
included.

Plans for
maintenance and
expansion of the
infrastructure are
included, but they
are basic and lack
specific
information such
as goals and
deadlines.

Accessibility

The plan does not

address
accessibility or
inadequately
describe the
districts plans to
ensure equal
access to
technology.

The plan
addresses
accessibility with
clear steps to
address issues and
ensure equal
access to
technology.

Budget

The plan does not

include budget
information, or
includes only an
overview. Budget
goals do not align
to plan goals or no
alignment
information is
given.

The plan
includes a
budget with
one-time future
expenditures as
well as recurring
payments
detailed.

Continuous
Improvement

The plan does not

include a way to
provide for
continuous
evaluation and
improvement.

The plan
includes
continuous
evaluation and
improvement,
but only basic
information is
included.
Continuous
improvement is

infrastructure.
Plans for
maintenance
and expansion
of the
infrastructure
are included and
are specific,
including details
such as goals
and deadlines.
The plan
addresses
accessibility in
detail. Plans to
ensure equal
access are
written in detail,
with clear action
steps and
responsibility
detailed in the
plan.
The plan includes
a budget with onetime future
expenditures as
well as recurring
payments
detailed. Budget
items align to the
goals of the plan.
Expected
outcomes are
stated, as well as
responsibility for
individual items.
The plan includes
ways to provide
for continuous
evaluation and
improvement that
are evident across
all areas of the
plan.
Improvement
strategies are

cursory and may

occur only at an
overview level.

clearly stated and

detailed, including
timelines and
ways the results
will impact future
technology
decisions.

A successful plan will earn a minimum of 11 out of

14 points, with no areas rated as Insufficient.
Coweta Countys plan earns 11 points,
making it successful.
Remarks and Recommendations
Vision/Mission Statements (2 of 2 points earned):
The vision and mission statements were very detailed, specific, and well-written;
however, they could be simplified and consolidated to only a few umbrella goals
on which Coweta County could focus. While these individual statements are very
good, having 10 of them may be overwhelming and result in a loss of focus. We
recommend for future plans that Coweta County take a look at reducing their
number of goals if they are able to do so and maintain their current level of focus.

Goals (2 of 2 points earned):

Coweta County has prepared excellent goals for their plan. Goals are extremely
detailed, including plans to meet each goal, timeframe, budget, evaluation criteria,
and responsibilities. Consider improving goals by aligning them with the vision
statements at the beginning of the plan (see above--this may result in reduction of
vision statements as there are only four goals). Also, consider adding baseline data
to indicate a starting point, which can later be used in measuring growth and or
progress. It might also be helpful to have solid data to support the need for and
justification of each of the goals.

Professional Development (1 of 2 points earned):

Although the technology plan stated ideas or goals for professional development,
actual strategies and implementations were unclear. The plan should include details
about methods of approaching the goals, and who and what tools will help these
goals and strategies be reached by all involved. Also, while Coweta Countys plan
contains many professional development goals, most have nothing to do with
technology. Some technology-related professional development strategies listed
are simply statements, such as: All new textbooks will come with web enhanced
and/or CD-ROM content and versions. This is inadequate to set the stage for
technology staff development. Recommendations for improvement include creating
more detailed goals that require action to complete; consider developing SMART
goals related to technology staff development. Detailed steps about how each goal

is going to be completed, by whom, with what resources, and in what timeframe,

would increase the chances that the goal will be met successfully. Consider
ensuring goals align to the overall vision of the plan.

Infrastructure (2 of 2 points earned):

Cowetas plan includes a detailed analysis of their current technology infrastructure
on pages 2 and 3. The plan contains a goal (Access to Technology) explicitly
written to improve the technology infrastructure of the school system. Plans to
improve the infrastructure include timelines, estimated budgets, and persons
responsible, which will improve the likelihood that this goal is met. The plan could
be improved by changing the information presented in the Technology Work Order
Database table on page 3. Simply listing the number of support requests receive is
not helpful, and lacks context that could be used in writing the plan. It would be
helpful to know what technology areas are receiving the most support requests
(which could indicate unmet needs) or which personnel divisions are submitting the
most requests per person (which might indicate future staff development
opportunities).

Accessibility (2 of 2 points earned):

Cowetas plan contains accessibility goals that are detailed and specific. The
Access to Technology goal mentioned above specifically addresses needs to
ensure access is even possible by ensuring infrastructure such as network capacity
exists in adequate amounts. The plans Instructional uses of technology goal is
very detailed and contains concrete steps to ensure that students have equal and
fair access to technology in their schools relative to the purchasing abilities of the
district. The plans goal to improve Parent/Community Uses of Technology does
not contain any steps to provide access to these groups. While the extent of the
responsibility of a school to provide internet access for populations other than
students can certainly be debated, Coweta should at least make an effort to provide
technology access to its parents. This could easily be done with existing resources
by providing parent workshops or access to school computers after hours, for
example.

Budget (1 of 2 points earned):

Overall, Coweta Countys technology plan contains sufficient budget information. A
clear, organized, uniform table including budget information for goals is provided
within the plan, aiding in the presentation of the alignment between budget
information and the rest of the plan. Budgeting information for known expenses and
overseeing information are included, helping to increase responsibility and
accountability for funding the plan, as the entity failing to fund certain parts can be
obviously detected. Cowetas plan provides an excellent overview of the fiscal
resources required to implement their technology plan successfully for most goal
strategies listed, but the plan currently does not list budget amounts for all
strategies. Only the source of the funding is mentioned for many of them. Needs
may change from year to year and so the yearly allocations need to be included to
prevent budgeting errors or other issues. Another recommendation to improve this

portion of the plan is to include more specific budgeting allocations, and one-time
and recurring expenditure information should be included in the document.

Continuous Improvement (1 of 2 points earned):

The goals within Cowetas technology plan contain steps for evaluation and review
which can be helpful while analyzing whether each goal is being met; however,
there is no indication of a plan or any strategies to improve weaknesses. For
example, the Annual Review section contains no details about improvement plans
other than scheduling meetings to review the plan. Coweta could benefit from
creating more detailed improvement strategies for each of their goals and clearly
stating the districts continuous improvement plan and any strategies that will be
used to complete the goals. This could be used as an early warning system, to
help notify those responsible that plan goals are not being met.