Technology Plan Evaluation

Cowe ta County School s

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 realiti es 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/20072012%20Georgia%20State%20Technology%20Plan.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6B339ECB94111E7B72D7D
55A7A26DF919F8013470C8510E82&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). Six-Step 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 i s 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/educationalleadership/feb11/vol68/num05/A-Technology-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), 117. 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 indepth 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 through out 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.
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.

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.

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.

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.
The plan does not
address accessibility or
inadequately describe
the districts plans to
ensure equal access to
technology.

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.

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 cursory
and may occur only at
an overview level.

Accessibility

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 plan.
The plan includes a
budget with one-time
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.
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

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

Vision/Mission
Statements

Infrastructure

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. Plans
for maintenance and
expansion of the
infrastructure are
included and are

infrastructure are
included.

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
cursory and may occur
only at an overview
level.

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 one-time
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.
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 approachin g 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 pl an 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.