Denise Johns, Myra Lipsey, and Kayse Morris

Part I: Technology Planning Analysis Rubric

Components Technology Contributors (Administration, Teachers, Students, Staff, Parents) Technology Contributors Support Vision 3 The plan membership list has a complete description of constituencies and stakeholder groups. Equitable representation from all five areas is apparent. The process to ensure equitable representation among stakeholder groups is mentioned and described in detail. The vision statement is focused on instructional outcomes and indicates what will be done to make the countys technology vision a reality. The mission statement is welldeveloped and thought out with regard to instructional outcomes and clearly indicates what the school and district will do to meet its technology vision. The goals are very realistic, broad, and comprehensive in addressing the needs of teaching and learning. They clearly answer the questions: Who? What? By When? By How Much? According to Which Instrument? The objectives are very realistic, measurable, and clearly define the steps to be taken to achieve the goals. The action plan is specifically tied to the goals and objectives. Each task identifies a timeline, responsibility, funding, and assessment. Clearly addresses issues of: staff development, technical support, technology standards, student access to computers, integrating new with old technologies, capacity of present facilities to accommodate new technologies; how technology resources and budget will be distributed among schools for equitable access, how needs of students with disabilities or limited English proficiency will be addressed, student access to computers, and capacity of present facilities to accept new technologies, etc. 2 The plan membership list contains a list of constituencies, but lacks equitable representation in one or more areas. The process to ensure equitable representation is briefly mentioned, but not described in detail. The vision statement focuses on how technology will improve student learning, but lacks a clear description of instructional outcome. The mission statement addresses learning outcomes, but states limited information in regards to what, why, and for whom the school or district is doing the plan. The goals pertain mostly to equipment and are very loosely linked to improvement plans for the district/school. 1 A list of contributors is absent or incomplete. 2

There is no process for equitable representation mentioned or described. The vision statement is not included or does address instructional or technology outcomes, or is very difficult to understand. The mission statement is missing or does not address instructional outcomes. It is difficult to understand or get a clear picture. General learning goals are not clear or are absent from the plan.

Mission Statement

Goals

Objectives

The objectives, although listed, may not be readily attainable or measurable. The action plan is specifically tied to the goals and objectives. The identified task, timeline, responsibility, funding, and assessments are incomplete and several elements are missing. Adequately addresses most, but not all, of the most significant issues specified in excellent column (3).

Action Plans/Timelines

General Issues

The objectives are absent or incomplete. They are difficult to understand and appear to be unrealistic and immeasurable. An action plan exists, but timelines and responsibilities are non-existent or very limited. Assessment is not mentioned. The action plan is not curriculum based. General issues missing, very incomplete, vaque.

Curriculum Integration

The plan specifically identifies how technology will enhance the curriculum. The plan also addresses strategies of teaching and learning that can be enhanced as a result of technology integration.

Acceptable Use Policy

The plan describes policies that are needed to ensure proper use of the technology resources (guidelines, software, facilities use policies, parental consent for Internet use, etc.) Includes a well-written draft of Acceptable Use Policy. An evaluation process and instrument are described in detail, and is comprehensive in nature. Assessment is timely, and tied to objectives. Provides clear and comprehensive description of the capabilities of hardware and learning environments. It identifies minimum standards and requirements for computer hardware, software, and connectivity; describes the types of learning environments that currently exist and those to be created by the plan. Specific funding sources are described including current and future funding sources. A plan for reallocation and employment of resources is included, along with budget figures and projections. Specific research and development efforts are described, with implications for future work (scalability) articulated. The R& D efforts have a timeline and measurable instruments in place. Specific educational research is mentioned, and connections are made to the efforts in schools in the district. Specific software polity is articulated with plans to accommodate software needs at the sites.

The plan specifically identifies how the curriculum can be enhanced by the use of technology with detail. A technology-rich environment is described, but strategies for enhanced teaching are not explored thoroughly. Provides an adequate description of the most relevant policy issues. Includes an adequate draft of Acceptable Use Policy.

The plan mentions curriculum integration and enhancement, but lacks detail.

Policy issues are absent, incomplete, or very difficult to understand. Lack of a draft of Acceptable Use Policy.

Evaluation

Technology Standards

An evaluation process and instrument is described in detail, but lacks complete comprehensiveness. The link to goals and objectives is not clear. Provides general description of hardware, software, and connectivity standards and requirements. Although clear, may miss some information elements.

An evaluation process is described, but lacks detail and comprehensiveness. It does not refer to learning outcomes. Technology standards, requirements, and models are missing, incomplete, or vague.

Funding

Specific funding sources are described, but are limited to traditional sources without specific budget figures.

School Pilot Projects

Specific R&D efforts are described, but scalability is not articulated; timelines and measurements are mentioned, but are not specific. Specific educational research is mentioned, but no connections are made to the efforts in the schools. Specific software policy is articulated, but is not tied to the needs of the sites.

Funding is mentioned, but the focus is primarily upon budgeting or specific site funding and does not address other incoming funding required to fully implement the plan. R & D efforts are mentioned, but lack specific detail. No timeline, assessment, or scalability is mentioned. Educational research is mentioned, but only in the broadest sense. Does not give a clear plan or direction. Software agreements and policy are mentioned, but the specific policies are not articulated in the plan.

Educational Research Software Agreements

In accordance to the Bulloch county school system, we chose the three-year comprehensive technology plan for Statesboro, Ga. This plan is in reference to the

school year beginning July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014. The current technology plan is state approved by the use of surveys, analysis, observations, test scores, and interviews. It was last amended April 14, 2011 and is actively in use in the Bulloch County School System. It is currently readily followed by the Bulloch County Board of Education and is monitored by the Georgia State Board of Education. Our rubric was created to identify the areas of strength and weakness in this three-year comprehensive plan. In the area of technology contributors, including but not limited to; administrators, teachers, students, staff, and parents we concluded that the plan membership list contains a list of constituencies, but lacks equitable representation in one or more areas. This can be viewed in the action plan portion of the technology plan. The areas are not specifically identified and lack potentially vital information in regards to contributors. The support from technology contributors is directly affected because the area of contributors again is mentioned briefly without specific detail. The vision statement focuses on how technology will improve student learning, but lacks a clear description of instructional outcome. The mission statement is well developed and thought out with regard to instructional outcomes and clearly indicates what the school and district will do to meet its technology vision. This mission makes up for the lack of clear description of instructional outcomes because it focuses on the needs and requirements of the technology vision. The goals are a pertinent part of the overall success of the plan. They were very realistic, broad, and comprehensive in addressing the needs of teaching and learning. They clearly answered the questions: Who? What? When? How Much? According to Which Instrument? These goals coupled with the objectives allowed the objectives to be very realistic, measurable, and to clearly define the steps that needed to be taken to achieve the goals. The action plan timeline is specifically tied to the goals and objectives. The identified task, timeline, responsibility, funding, and assessments are incomplete and several elements are missing; however, the goals allowed this area to still hold validity. The general issues clearly address issues of: staff development, technical support, technology standards, student access to computers, integrating new with old technologies, capacity of present facilities to accommodate new technologies; how technology resources and budget will be distributed among schools for equitable access, how needs of students with disabilities or limited English proficiency will be addressed, student access to computers, and capacity of present facilities to accept new technologies, etc. In regards to curriculum integration the plan specifically identifies how the curriculum can be enhanced by the use of technology with detail. A technologyrich environment is described, but strategies for enhanced teaching are not explored thoroughly. One way to develop a better atmosphere for curriculum integration would be to add more detail to this area and allow teachers to conduct surveys on how certain parts of technology are used to aid in student achievement.

The acceptable use policy is extensive in that the plan describe policies that are needed to ensure proper use of the technology resources (guidelines, software, facilities use policies, parental consent for Internet use, etc.) It also includes a well-written draft of Acceptable Use Policy. An evaluation process and instrument is described in detail, but lacks complete comprehensiveness. The link to goals and objectives is not clear. A way to improve the evaluation process would be to link it directly to the goals and objectives of the technology plan. The technology standards provide a clear and comprehensive description of the capabilities of hardware and learning environments. It also identifies minimum standards and requirements for computer hardware, software, and connectivity; describes the types of learning environments that currently exist and those to be created by the plan. Specific funding sources are described including current and future funding sources. A plan for reallocation and employment or school pilot projects of resources is included, along with budget figures and projections. Specific educational research and development efforts are described, with implications for future work (scalability) articulated. The R& D efforts have a timeline and measurable instruments in place. Specific educational research is mentioned, and connections are made to the efforts in schools in the district. Specific software agreements are articulated with plans to accommodate software needs at the sites. Overall this technology plan was assessed above average. It lacked initial gratification with the lack of a clear vision for the plan; however the momentum is regained when the technology plan allows the technology standards, funding, specific education research and software polity to stand-alone. The funding in Bulloch County is unique to other schools because of the educational revenue that is generated in Statesboro because of Georgia Southern University. This plan is overall great quality.