Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 1

Technology Plan Planning Paper

Jamie Schaller

Loyola University

ET 680
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 2

Analysis of Current Situation

At White Oak Elementary School (WOES), technology is encouraged to be used as a way

to enhance student learning, provided meaningful academic activities, and engage students to

participate in and enjoy learning. WOES services students throughout Baltimore County who

have behavioral needs, as well as students on the autism spectrum, all of which have

Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs). Technology can be used as a motivator, while also

being a critical piece for student communication and incentives. Due to a variety of factors,

technology is often a distraction, and it can be difficult to utilize it appropriately in the

classroom. Technology is also often broken in this environment, which creates difficulties when

assignments are solely completed through the use of a computer.

In order to provide students with the most academically engaging and meaningful

instruction, a new set of programs should be evaluated and utilized for instruction. Currently

teachers and students at WOES use BCPS One, which has test and quizzes, web tools, approved

programs, and media outlets. Most students do not get to explore programs until they are made

to complete an assignment. Often the programs that students have accessible are too difficult for

their specific levels, or do not provided appealing content. Students become frustrated and as a

result teachers do not want to assign work for students to complete. The devices are mostly used

for reward, in which students play Cool-Math, or other school approved “fun” sites; this means

that students are not getting the most out of the tools they are given, because it is “too much

work” for all involved. On average, it takes two class periods to teach students how to

effectively use a new program, and then an extra two class periods for students to use the

program to complete an assignment (based on a 45 minute class period). By exploring new,

appropriate programs, teachers and students can have more meaningful, personalized instruction.
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 3

In terms of Surry’s (1997) five theories, WOES teacher comfort level, time, and

appropriateness of programs are most relevant. Trialability should first start with a group of

teacher which range in grade level. These teachers would pilot a few different programs that

were approved by administration and the county. The piloting teachers would rate the programs

based on user friendliness, appropriateness for grade level, provide pros and cons, and contribute

ways that the program could be utilized in a variety of grade levels. Observability would be

connected to the trialability stage, in which teachers would observe effectiveness of programs in

their own classrooms as well as others. By completing a predetermined rubric, teachers would

be able to provide meaningful feedback on the observed results. Relative advantage would allow

teachers to critique their own use of the programs they are piloting, while also gaining feedback

from respected colleagues, helping to create a smoother implementation process. When students

in younger grades are introduced to new programs, they will have time to practice; then they will

become “experts” in those programs by the time they move on to older grades, instilling

confidence. Teachers will feel a sense of “relief” as they become confident in new, valuable

resources to use in the classroom. Complexities in the plan include teacher openness to try new

resources, time for teachers to learn new programs, and then teach them to students. Programs

not already approved by BCPS would have to be accepted, and then installed on student and

teacher devices. Lastly, compatibility and coherence would be a big part of the process; by

having teachers in different grade levels participate, a better array of programs could be chosen.

When the best of the programs are determined, teachers will be able to teach students how to use

the programs, providing consistency between classes in the same grade, as well as classes in the

building. Students would be able to strengthen their knowledge in the programs and could

continue to use the appropriate software throughout multiple grade levels. Since all of the
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 4

students and teachers have the same devices, there would be no compatibility of software issues.

There may be difficulties with some teachers not wanting to participate, and other complications

trying to determine the best programs for students. It is hard also because teaching students the

programs will take extra time, and we are not able to provide after school sessions to students

who might want more opportunities to learn. Although this technology plan might be difficult

initially to roll out, it would create more personalized, authentic learning.

Changing the programs used on the devices might cause difficulties with fulfilling Ely’s

Eight Conditions. Currently there is a dissatisfaction with the status quo between teachers and

students. Many teachers do not know how to use the technology effectively, so they are upset

with the way instruction is presented to students. Students are upset because all they want to do

is play on the devices, since the programs they use are “boring”. Often teachers do not know

where to start, or what else to do. Some teachers in the building possess knowledge and skills to

supplement curriculum by finding their own programs to use. Other teachers are resistant to

change, and still require students to solely complete paper and pencil assignments. The teachers

that want to find new programs, typically do, because they watch tutorials, take classes, or seek

out assistance. In order to make the programs successful in the classroom, the appropriate

resources need to be available. Teachers need to be able to have trainings and access to software

and devices that consistently work. Time available will be the greatest struggle for teachers and

students. Teachers have to take or be provided with the time to research, test, and implement

programs. They also have to use valuable class time to teach students how to use the programs,

before assignments can even be given. Rewards or incentives would be nice for teachers, but not

necessary. Many teachers want to make instruction and content meaningful, so they would be

more inclined to establish a new system of programs; in this instance, intrinsic motivation would
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 5

outweigh extrinsic. Rather than mandatory, initial participation would be expected and

encouraged. Some teachers would be very eager to pilot programs, because they are the ones

who seek change; other teachers would fight the process because they have their own

reservations about implementation. By having all teachers participate in the review of programs,

they will feel invested in the process. Although some teachers are hesitant to try new things, all

staff at WOES are committed to the students and what is best for them, they want all to succeed.

A leadership team for the technology roll-out would be necessary. Strong individuals who share

a similar outlook would have to be on the technology committee, in order for the programs to

successfully work.

Although all of Ely’s conditions are critical to have success, a few of them need more

effort. Resources and time are the most difficult conditions to control. Many teachers do not

know where to begin with instruction if it does not come directly from curriculum. Since

devices are easily broken at WOES, additional devices would need to be accessible for students

if necessary. The programs that would be utilized would need to be up to date and consistently

working. WOES would need approval from BCPS for the programs and buy the licenses

purchased for additional programs not already available. Time is also a huge factor, as teachers

already feel overwhelmed with the current workload. Asking them to take the time to review

and pilot new programs, would require time for them to do that. Once the programs were

accepted, providing teachers the time to teach students how to use the programs would also be

difficult, but necessary. Since WOES is a Title One school, and most transportation to and from

school is by buses, students are unable to stay after school for training sessions and workshops.

Teachers would have to use class time to prepare students for the use of the programs. As a

technology leader, it would be important to have additional resources available for teachers and
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 6

students if devices break. Adding in workshops for teachers who need extra assistance might

also help with the class time factor, but the technology committee would work to brainstorm

effective solutions to these conditions.

Currently, WOES is somewhere in between the entry phase and the adoption phase of the

ACOT stages. Some teachers are still just beginning to use technology as more than just

entertainment for students; these teachers rely on others to help them efficiently use the programs

and software available. Other teachers are in the adoption phase using tools to support teaching;

these teachers provide students with assignments on the devices to substitute paper and pencil

tasks, but they do not modify assignments. Students are not using devices often for modification

of assignments, they are mostly just completing test and quizzes or looking up articles for

research.

At WOES there are three individuals who use technology on a regular basis. One third

grade teacher is in the Appropriation Stage of the ACOT model. This teacher is comfortable

with learning tools, and technology is an integrated part of learning. Students in this class are

able to work at their own pace with learning, accomplishing authentic, appropriate work. One

fourth grade teacher is in the Adaptation State of the ACOT model. This teacher uses technology

to increase student productivity and engagement. Students are beginning to work on more

complex assignments, although at times they are just substitutions for previous activities. This

teacher does a great job of providing meaningful feedback to support student learning. A fifth

grade teacher is currently in the Adoption Stage of the ACOT model, providing students with

lessons that are similar to what was used before. Student use on the devices is limited to

technology that just supports traditional teaching. Students use programs like Dreambox for
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 7

math, but new, meaningful assignments are not given. Most of the primary grade teachers are

still in the Entry or Adoption Stages, not using technology as efficiently as possible.

By critically analyzing where WOES is currently in relation to Surry, Ely, and ACOT,

real change can occur. A technology committee will work to increase student engagement and

activity. Monitoring current level and progress will help to make the integration of technology

occur more smoothly.

Stakeholders

The only way to effectively move forward with the new programs is to have a team that

shares the same mentalities and is invested in the process. Members of an effective technology

committee at WOES would include the Students and Teachers Accessing Tomorrow (STAT)

teacher, principal, Tech Liaison, and myself, referred to as the Technology Lead Teacher (TLT)

for the initial planning phases. After the plan had been set, the committee would also require the

assistance from one primary teacher, one intermediate teacher, one Communication and Learning

Support (CALS) teacher, the Title One Parent Service Coordinator, and one behavior support

personnel. Having a team of diverse individuals would help to make the plan effective, and the

transition to new programs would be more seamless.

The stakeholders described in the WOES technology plan would represent the

stakeholders that are mentioned in The Guidebook for Developing an Effective Technology Plan

(17-18). It is difficult to have community members as WOES is not a home school for any

student. Faculty members, administrators, technology professionals, and additional support

personnel will mostly be included in the process. As the lead teacher of the committee, it is

important to be committed, assertive, and flexible to the whole process. Having the Title One
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 8

Parent Service Coordinator as a member would provide an outlet to inform parents on the

ultimate plans of the committee. This representative could also record meeting minutes and

notes. The STAT teacher and Tech Liaison would provide the most technological support, and

assist teachers with specifics of the plan. By including teachers from different grade levels and

subject areas, programs chosen for student use would be more comprehensive.

One of the most important parts of an effective committee is to make sure that members

are involved and valued. Initially, the committee would encompass members who seek

technological change. After the initial planning was created, teachers would be invited to join

and participate. Ideally, it would be nice to provide compensation or incentives for teachers who

participate, but this might be difficult with budgeting. By having monthly meetings, where all

group members have a chance to report feedback or share ideas, members would feel valued and

important, encouraging continued participation in the planning process. It would also be

important to provide piloting teachers appropriate and immediate feedback towards

implementation of new programs.

In The Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan, a variety

of committee members are listed (17). While some of the personnel are listed, not all are

included in the WOES team. Ideally students would be able to participate on the committee, but

this would be difficult at WOES. A student in an older grade could potentially be on the

committee, but many students at WOES are emotionally immature for their age, and might

struggle to be productive members of the committee. Since transportation is also a factor, it

would be difficult to have a student stay after school to provide insight, so class time or student

lunch would have to be utilized. Since parent involvement is very minimal at WOES, having a

representative on the committee might not be the most ideal. It can be challenging just to receive
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 9

signed documents, or reach a parent on the phone, let alone have them attend an in school

meeting. Having the Title One Parent Service Coordinator on the technology team would aid

with relaying information to parents as necessary. Involving community members might be

challenging as well, since WOES is not the home school for any students in the building. The

committee could consider having representatives from the public school across the street,

Oakeigh Elementary School, to use as a resource. Faulty members and administrators would be

key members in the committee, in order to promote success. Business persons might be a

positive consulting agency, especially those that are involved with the piloting programs that will

be used. The school librarian is also the Tech Liaison for the school, so she would be an active

member of the committee. While both administrators would be ideal to have on the committee,

having one administrative support personnel present would work for the technology committee.

The members of the committee would have an open door policy and also would be open to

suggestions from outside members.

As discussed previously, the two many conditions of Ely’s that WOES will struggle with

are time and resources. One of the purposes of the technology committee is to evaluate how to

assist teachers with these conditions. First the team must discuss the dissatisfaction that teachers

in the building are feeling. Observing classrooms would aid with this process, providing specific

examples of how technology is currently used in each classroom. Having students provide

insight to the committee might also be helpful. Having the committee also talk to staff and see

their comfort level, knowledge level and skill set would also help to integrate the process. It

would also be crucial to have the technology provide teachers with a start of programs and

resources. Although the piloting teachers would ultimately be using the programs first, having a

team to assist with resources, and also provide support would streamline the process. Time
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 10

would be the biggest concern of the committee. If necessary, the committee could spend time

working with a piloting teachers classroom in order to provide teachers time to experiment with

the piloting programs. Teachers would be more incentivized to try programs if they received

additional compensation for their time, a stipend for being a part of the piloting process, and

extra time to plan without missing valuable instruction. It seems as though time might be the

greatest struggle when making this process successful, as teachers might be hesitant to change

their current schedule since they would lose time, but combining extra time with rewards or

incentives would likely increase participation. The last important part of Ely’s condition is

having strong leaders in the technology committee to aid with program success. By having a

strong TLT, STAT teacher, Tech Liaison, and piloting teachers leadership in the school will be

evident. In order for the initiative to work, the TLT must be one of the main leaders, believe in

the process, and provide encouragement not only to the committee but whole school.

Plan of Action

Determining a strong plan of action is the only way that the technology plan will be

successful. The purpose of the technology plan vision and mission statement are to tell others

what is expected to happen in the future and how these plans will be fulfilled. The WOES

technology plan mission will encompass the how technology will be utilized in the school to

enhance curriculum and instruction. The vision will be specific to the types of students that

WOES services, having relevant, accessible equipment ready in classrooms. These classrooms

will have one-to-one devices for students, supplemental technologies available, and teachers will

be expected to understand and use the programs during instruction. Instruction will be student

centered, self-paced, and customized to each student’s academic need. It would be ideal to have

a variety of programs and technologies available so that students could have choice in how they
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 11

want to demonstrate their knowledge in specific areas. Teachers will use the technology in the

classroom to promote student engagement and teachers will also provide student workshops to

help those who need additional help. By having a variety of programs, student progress will be

expected; students will meet the current Common Core State Standards (CCSS) through a variety

of ways that are personalized to each student. Eventually, parents will be able to see student

progress towards assignments, and they will continue to see student grades online. By

implementing this plan, students will become globally competent learners, college and career

ready, and feel a sense of pride and success in their learning.

As equally important as the vision, is the mission statement. In order to make the vision

come true, teachers must work together to support learners, constantly looking for new programs

to promote success. Teachers will become advisors more so then the sole means of instruction

for students. To WOES teachers and the technology committee, learning is described as helping

students succeed in acquiring new knowledge; teachers believe that although students have

different strengths and needs, they are all capable of progressing, but instruction must be

engaging and meaningful. In classrooms, teachers would be expected to facilitate learning by

providing the appropriate tools, rather than delivering instruction the same way for students.

Using technology in the classroom allows students to be creative, and use multiple styles of

instruction to meet their diverse needs.

With every plan there are strengths and weaknesses. The technology committee would

work to try to determine what initial problems might occur in order to stop them from happening,

but there will be unforeseen problems that arise. First, if the technology or devices are not

available or student device batteries are dead, instruction would be compromised. By having

additional devices accessible, these problems may not occur. Secondly, making sure that students
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 12

have access to programs that will be accessible for more than one year would be important. It

would be unfortunate to have students and teachers become comfortable with programs only to

have the licenses expire. The technology committee would work to research programs that

would be available over multiple years. Ideally the committee and technology plan would

resolve boredom in the classroom, while providing students with meaningful learning. The plan

would also aid in teachers work load, because they could provide a framework for assignments

and students would be allowed to use whatever tools they would like in order to complete the

activity.

One of the most crucial steps in making the technology plan successful, is determining a

timeline, action steps, and assessment of steps. The TLT, STAT Teacher, and Principal would

work to create a timeline for the plan. The plan would initially span over a calendar year, and

would involve multiple phases; the committee would meet to discuss the initial phases, then the

piloting teachers would be involved in the second phases, and the final stage would be the roll-

out of the programs to students. In order to determine if the plan is successful, appropriate

cabinet notes and minutes would be taken, surveys given, and forums to have all staff members

involved. A sample action plan can be found below:

Action Plan - WOES

(for the purpose of this document I will refer to myself as TLT (technology lead teacher)

Action Person/Group Date to be Assessment

Responsible Completed By

Meet with principal and Principal, STAT June 2017 Letter of intent for the
share ideas and goals of teacher, Tech principal to sign
technology plan and get Liaison, TLT
approval to form a
technology committee
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 13

Full faculty meeting to Principal, STAT August 2017 Meeting sign-in sheet to
alert staff of the formation teacher, Tech document that everyone
of technology committee Liaison, TLT heard the presentation
and to share goals of the
committee

Full faculty meeting to Principal, STAT August 2017 Technology committee

review goals and to recruit teacher, Tech Back to School sign-up sheet
members to the Liaison week, prior to
committee: student arrival
*one primary grade
teacher
*one intermediate grade
teacher
*one special area teacher
*one CALS teacher
*one behavior support
personnel
*one administrator
*STAT Teacher
*Tech Liaison

Create Microsoft 365 STAT, TLT September Acceptance of editing

OneNote working 2017 document
notebook. First week back

Formation of the STAT teacher, Tech September All representatives will

technology committee
Liaison, TLT 2017 receive an email with
*Title One Parent First week back meeting dates for the
Service Coordinator 2017/2018 school year
*one primary grade
teacher
*one intermediate
grade teacher
*one special area
teacher
*one CALS teacher
*one behavior
support personnel
*one administrator

September committee TLT, committee September Meeting agendas and

meeting: members and other 2017 minutes, informal
What programs work and representatives discussions, follow up
what programs do not? survey sent to staff
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER
October committee
meeting: Review survey
results and pick four
programs to test
Begin trial of four
programs
November committee
meeting: Current teacher
feedback and Lead Pilot
Teacher Group #1
feedback
December committee
meeting: Lead Pilot
Teacher Group #1
feedback and selection of
programs for primary and
intermediate grade levels
January Faculty PD:
Explanation of programs
and participation survey
First Wave of teacher
implementation
*Two primary grade
teachers
*Two intermediate grade
teachers
*One CALS teacher
February committee
meeting: Initial successes
and struggles of first wave
teachers,
14
using Microsoft 365
Forms
TLT, committee October 2017 Meeting agendas and
members minutes, informal
discussions, add survey
results to OneNote
Notebook
TLT, Lead Pilot November - Add reflection notes to
Teachers Group #1 December 2017 OneNote Notebook,
(4 on the committee) monthly survey
responses
TLT, Lead Pilot November Meeting agendas and
Teachers Group #1, 2017 minutes, informal
committee members, discussions
and other
representatives
TLT, Lead Pilot December 2017 Meeting agendas and
Teachers Group #1, Just prior to minutes, informal
committee members winter break discussions
TLT, committee January 2018 Meeting agendas and
members, Lead Pilot Beginning of minutes, informal
Teachers Group #1, month discussions, Survey on
and other Microsoft 365 Forms
representatives
TLT, committee January 2018 Add reflection notes to
members, Lead Pilot End of month OneNote Notebook,
Teachers Group #1, monthly survey
and other responses
representatives
TLT, committee February 2018 Meeting agendas and
members, Lead Pilot End of month minutes, informal
Teachers Group #1, discussions, Add
First Wave teachers reflection notes to
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 15

Committee members will and other OneNote Notebook,

begin looking for representatives survey on Microsoft
additional programs to 365 Forms
pilot

March Faculty PD: TLT, committee March 2018 Meeting agendas and
Discuss current programs members, Lead Pilot End of Month minutes, informal
in use with piloting Teachers Group #1, discussions, Add
committee members and First Wave Teachers reflection notes to
First Wave Teachers and other OneNote Notebook
representatives

April committee meeting: TLT, Lead Pilot April 2018 Meeting agendas and
Committee members Teachers Group #1, Beginning of minutes, informal
present additional committee members Month discussions, Add
programs to pilot and reflection notes to
survey is given to OneNote Notebook,
determine next wave of Microsoft 365 - Forms
programs survey

April committee meeting: TLT, committee April 2018 Meeting agendas and
First Wave teachers members, Lead Pilot End of Month minutes, informal
provide feedback, Lead Teachers Group #1 discussions, Add
Pilot Teachers Group #2 & #2, First Wave reflection notes to
begin trial of new Teachers OneNote Notebook
programs for 2018-2019
school year

May committee meeting: TLT, committee May 2018 Meeting agendas and
First Wave teachers members, Lead Pilot End of Month minutes, informal
provide feedback on Teachers Group #1 discussions, Add
piloting programs, Lead & #2, First Wave reflection notes to
Teacher Group #2 provide Teachers OneNote Notebook
feedback

June Survey and TLT, committee June 2018 Microsoft 365 Forms
reflections: members, Lead Pilot Prior to the last Survey, Add reflection
First Wave Teachers Teachers Group #1 day of school notes to OneNote
provide final surveys and & #2, First Wave Notebook
reflection on programs Teachers
Lead Teacher Group #1
provide final survey and
reflection on programs
Lead Teacher Group #2
provide final survey and
reflections on programs
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 16

Review of plan for
implementation across the
whole school for 2018-
2019 school year
TLT, committee August 2018 Meeting agendas and
members, Lead Pilot Prior to school minutes, informal
Teachers Group #1 year starting discussions, Add
& #2, First Wave reflection notes to
Teachers OneNote Notebook

By having a rough outline of an implementation plan, the process will go much smoother when

time to begin.

In order to create the most effective technology plan, other successful plans should be

reviewed. Marietta City Schools District Technology Plan was created for a Georgia charter

system. The goal of the plan was to prepare students for success through the use of technological

improvement in the district; student engagement was important to the success of the plan,

providing students with learning beyond the walls of the classroom. The plan was very

successful in documenting a detailed timeline for a build-your-own-technology (BYOT)

program. The technology committee was clearly outlined from the beginning, including

members of the district, teachers, principals, technology specialists, and parents. It was

interesting to note that the plan included both parent and student, as well as teacher surveys

which guided how technology was integrated. Each technological goal was clearly outlined for

each phase of the plan. There was also a yearly monitoring tool to see how the plan was

progressing. There were not many negative features of this plan, but it might have been

beneficial for a few schools to be testers of this roll-out, rather than start district-wide. The

lighthouse school model that BCPS utilized seemed to help with the “kinks” involved in the

implementation process.

The Fullerton School District Technology Plan focuses on using technology for

instruction as a means to support achievement and promote student success. The plan has a
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 17

specific duration and the stakeholders are outlined, including teacher, administrators, parents,

students, members of the community, and district members. The plan included previous

technological expectations and ways that the committee would work to implement new

expectations. The Fullerton Plan also had benchmarks that aligned with the ISTE Standards and

CCSS. The timeline was extremely specific, having a variety of activities and different ways to

evaluations whether the activities were successful or not. One thing to note was that there were a

lot of goals that were outlined in the plan; while they all seemed important to the success, it was

a bit overwhelming to read about. The budget was clearly outlined by year, as were the

evaluation tools of each activity.

Both districts provide successful models of technology plans that WOES could emulate.

It is difficult to compare district models to a single school, especially with the unique needs of

WOES. By reviewing a vast collection of technology plans, a better structured plan could be

created, and therefore would be successful in the school.

Summary

In order to promote success, change must occur. At WOES students are meeting

academic goals, but could use technology to strengthen the learning process, allowing students to

take control of their learning. Through the use of a well thought out technology plan, students

would be able to meet success, and teacher would become facilitators in the classroom. Forming

a technology committee would allow teachers to explore new, appropriate programs that students

could use. By piloting these programs, teachers would receive relevant feedback, and students

would be able to explore the programs prior to being graded on the use of them. The only way

for the programs and plan to be successful though, is to have all committee members with the

same goal in mind; without a clear plan, success is unattainable.

Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN PLANNING PAPER 18

References

Dwyer, D. C., Ph.D., Ringstaff, C., Ph.D., & Haymore Sandholtz, J., Ph.D. (1990). Teacher

Beliefs and Practices Part 1: Patterns of Change (Rep. No. #8). Retrieved March 15,

2017, from Apple Computer, Inc. website: http://wildej.pbworks.com/f/rpt08.pdf

Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that Facilitate the Implementation of Educational Technology

Innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,23(2), 298-305.

doi:10.1080/08886504.1990.10781963

Surry, Daniel W. (February 20, 1997) Diffusion Theory and Instructional Technology. [Online]

Retrieved from http://intro.base.org/docs/diffusion/

Fullerton School District: District Technology Plan 2014-2017 (Technology Plan). (2014).

Retrieved March 15, 2017, from http://www.fullertonsd.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/09/FSDTechPlan_2014.pdf

Marietta City Schools District Technology Plan January 2015 – June 2018 (Technology Plan).

(n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2017, from https://www.marietta-

city.org/cms/lib07/GA01903590/Centricity/Shared/files/technology/MCS%20Technolog

y%20Plan.pdf