You are on page 1of 3

L. McCord, K. McGouirk, K.

Slaughter Technology Plan Evaluation Rubric Monroe County School District Forsyth, GA Elements
I: Goals and Realistic Strategy for Using Telecommunications and Information Technology

1
Goals and realistic strategies do not offer clarification or are not present in the technology plan.

2
Goals and realistic strategies are thorough but lack clarity. Goals are linked to strategies and/or are not present; however, they are either not achievable or measurable.

3
Goals and realistic strategies are clear and wideranging, addressing learning, teaching, assessment, productivity, infrastructure, community and professional development needs for utilizing telecommunications and information technology. The stated goals are achievable and measurable. Strategies are described from goals and provide extensive details on how they will be met.

Score

II: Professional Development Strategy

Professional Development is not prominent and/or provides negligible data on current and emerging technology proficiencies or how the plan will assist teachers, staff and leadership to obtain the needed proficiencies for continued learning and curriculum integration.

Professional Development plan offers a brief summary of existing and desirable technology proficiencies. Explains a few strategies and proposals for implementing technology initiatives and incorporating other resources that will enable teachers, staff and leadership to obtain the needed proficiencies.

Professional Development plan clearly depicts existing and desirable technology proficiencies; explains multiple strategies for how professional development will support technology initiatives; describes how to create custom online courses for professional learning for teachers, staff and leadership.

III: Assessment of Technology Services, Hardware, Software, and Other Needed Services

The assessment plan is not based on standards, or inclusive particulars such as hardware and software initiatives are not evident.

The assessment plan is based on relevant standards and specifies how the utilization of hardware and software will assist with continuous assessment; aspects include student performance and to influence, encourage and support academic improvements. However, it does not recognize the importance of the association and significance of locally planned assessments to the district, state and/or national educational technology standards. Additionally, it does not forecast any necessary actions that will be taken place in the event of achievement or failure.

The assessment plan is based on relevant standards, specifies how the utilization of hardware and software will assist with continuous assessment; aspects include student performance and to influence, encourage and support academic improvements. Recognizes the importance of the association and significance of locally planned assessments to the district as well as state and/or national educational technology standards.

IV: Budget Resources

Annual technology budget details are not included or are unclear with minimal information that correlates with plan goals and objectives.

Annual technology budget provides majority of the budget details. Exhibits consistency with plan goals and objectives.

Annual technology budget provides explanation, which identifies capital purchases, training support expenditures, etc. Recognizes probable new and alternative funding sources. Budgets are pragmatic and align with plan goals and objectives.

V: Ongoing Evaluation Process

No ongoing formal evaluation is described.

An ongoing evaluation process is described; however, it lacks details and complete depth.

An ongoing evaluation process is explained in great detail, and is all-inclusive in nature. The link to overall goals and strategies is unquestionably evident.

Technology Plan Analysis


Introduction The current Technology Plan for the Monroe County School System is designed to last for a three-year period from 2012-2015. It was last revised March 22, 2012 by Chief Technology Officer Valerie Mercer. There is also a Technology Handbook attached to the plan that was last updated in April of 2012. The plan states that it is part of a Continuous Improvement Cycle, suggesting that it is actively followed and updated regularly. Though no exact revision schedule is implicitly stated, each goal depicted in the plan is connected to specific benchmarks, including the school year in which the benchmark is to be measured. A chart also indicates the evaluation method, the funding sources for the improvements, and who holds the responsibility for each item. This structure demonstrating measurable goals and assigning accountability suggests that the plan is followed and is kept relatively current. Evaluation of Element I: Goals and Realistic Strategy Our group scored Monroe Countys plan with a 3 in this area. The goals are exceptionally detailed in the plan. The plan addresses a variety of attainable and measurable goals throughout. The strategies are derived from the goals and provide more extensive details on how they would be achieved. As previously stated, each goal includes a strategy, benchmark/success indicator, evaluation method, funding source/amount, and person(s) responsible. This provides a greater understanding of the necessary requirements for schools to follow throughout the school year. An example of a realistic goal stated in the plan is Create and maintain a Monroe County School System human resources bullet in board so that job openings can be handled electronically. The plan calls for exploring possible venders, training administrators in the use of the new system, then having the Human Resources Director evaluate the use of the portal. Many other items are listed that can be implemented immediately and indicated how the follow-up will occur and by whom giving the goals a greater likelihood of becoming reality. Evaluation of Element II: Professional Development Strategy The plan earned a 2 in Professional Development Strategy. It encompasses implementation of desirable new technologies, but stops short of explaining exactly how and when the professional development for teachers will occur. For example, one of the success indicators stated for FY2012 simply says Continue training teachers to use response devices and mobile technology in classroom instruction. This is not an indicator that can be effectively measured. In other areas, the plan suggests that training may occur during the Leading Learner Summit offered to all employees during the summer. The plan does seem to acknowledge the issue of professional development quite often, such as in another goal that states that during FY2013-2014 the district will Train teachers on cybersafety and integration of mobile devices into instruction. It also reflects t he need for providing online learning options for professional development when it states that in FY2014-2015 the system will Continue to train teachers on various technology applications, and provide online forums for continued learning. It even mentions potentially building some custom courses for certain teachers, but no specifics are given. The plan could be improved upon by including a specific timeline for staff development on emerging technology.

Evaluation of Element III: Assessment of Technology Services We gave the Monroe County plan a 3 on our rubric in the area of Assessment of Technology Services. The plan addresses National Education Technology Standards (NETS) for teachers, students, and administrators. In addition to NETS recommendations of accessibility, support, sustainability, and professional development, the plan also states local goals such as stakeholders must be able to use digital age tools to communicate, to negotiate relationships, to access and manage information, and to solve problems and making sure that all Monroe County citizens will be literate in the use of existing and emerging technologies and that they will use these technologies to become lifelong learners and mentors. The tools used to collect data on all of the standards and goals include budgetary expenditures as well as alternative funding sources, technology usage statistics, surveys of students, parents, and community members, a gap analysis of technology resources between schools in the system, the annual technology inventory, and criterion referenced computer competency tests of students. Evaluation of Element IV: Budget Resources Unfortunately, the current plan received a 2 due to the lack of specific details in reference to the budgeting resources. T he funding source/amount is definitely provided; however, it does not fully depict precise data. Furthermore, the plan should offer a more in-depth explanation of such resources that correlates with planned goals and proposed strategies. Evaluation of Element V: Ongoing Evaluation Process In the area of Ongoing Evaluation, the plan scored a 2. While the plan does include some formative assessment strategies, t hey are often not specific and measurable or details of the assessment are not clear. For example, it mentions collecting survey data from stakeholders concerning technology initiatives, but does not detail who the surveys will target, how they are to be collected, or how results are to be analyzed and used for improvement. One positive aspect of the plan is that a person or team is assigned to each goal which allows for increased accountability in the evaluation process. To improve this element, more detailed information could be included concerning the evaluation process. This might include a schedule of when surveys will be distributed as well as information about the analysis. Summary Overall, the Monroe County Technology Plan seems to be of fair quality. The plans goals and strategies are achievable and measurable. Professional development is preferred for stakeholders but not specifically explained in guidelines. Assessment of technology services is evident through data which supports the National Education Technology Standards (NETS). Budget resources are vague and may lack the explanation needed for plan development. The ongoing evaluation also seems ambiguous due to limited details. With the exception of a few issues the plan seems to be proficiently written. Furthermore, the plan models the school system as being one of excellence. In the future we hope to see the plans revision include a stronger budget implementing more professional development for all stakeholders.