You are on page 1of 10


Technology Plan Evaluation and Recommendations

Marietta City Schools, Georgia

FRIT 7232 Visionary Leadership in Instructional Technology

Candice Beattie, Erica Colbert, Alison Geigerman, Helena Wallace, Valerie Morris

Georgia Southern University

February 11, 2016

Technology Plan Resources


Retrieved January 30th, 2016, from


This listing contains the local district technology plans that we used for comparison to other technology plans from districts within

Georgia. Each plan contains a basic framework that we analyzed to create our rubric.

Barnett, H. (2001, October 01). Successful K-12 Technology Planning: Ten Essential Elements. ERIC Digest. Retrieved

February 05, 2016, from This website teaches how to create a technology plan. It

talks about 10 importante categories and then it breaks them down into key points to help you understand how to apply it to your

school or district.

Brophy, T. S. (n.d.). Writing Effective Rubrics [Pdf]. Florida: University of Florida. Retrieved

February 05, 2016, from This pdf

article teaches you all about rubrics. Why we use them, what they are most useful for, how to create an efficient one and how to

adapt them to your needs.

Connor, D. (2012, May 21). Technology Planning: Closing the Communications Gap. Retrieved February 05, 2016, from This website has several different links for teachers and technology

directors. This link provides information and articles for technology directors to implement and create a technology plan. It also

provides important information and ideas for teachers on using technology in the classroom.

Cox, C. (2007). Georgia K-12 Technology Plan. Retrieved February 5, 2016, from Georgia State Technology

Plan.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6B339ECB94111E7B72D7D55A7A26DF919F8013470C8510E82&Type=D This is the Georgia

Department of Education technology plan from 2007-2012. This plan provides information on the stakeholders involved in

developing and implementing the technology plan. This document also provides a vision statement used to implement and carry

out the technology plan. The process used to plan and draft the plan is explicitly detailed throughout. They included the national

trends that would help guide the plan and vision for the technology needs.

Culatta, Richard. Future Ready Learning: Reimagining The Role Of Technology In Education. 1st ed. US Department of Education, 2016.

Web. 4 Feb. 2016. National Education Technology Plan: Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved February 5, 2016, from This website provides several help links and information on resources for teachers, leaders, students,

families, and developers. The link provides insight on the national vision for the use of technology in education. There are

several different links to help with the development and implementation of a technology plan.

Georgia Department of Education. (2014). Three-year technology plan. Retrieved from Infrastructure/Documents/GaDOE_Technology_Plan_Rubric_2013.doc In order to

receive E-Rate and other funding, systems in Georgia must have a current, approved technology plan. The purpose of this rubric

is to help systems write a technology plan that meets E-Rate guidelines and is designed to improve education. This document is

set up not only as a rubric, but also as a template that systems can use when creating their plans. The document provides an

outline of everything that is required in a technology plan as well as guidelines and examples for writing goals, strategies and

other necessary information.

IMPACT: Guidelines for North Carolina Media and Technology Programs. (2006). Retrieved February 05, 2016, from This website talks about the different aspects of building and technology plans.

The information is written very directly with the use of bullet points and images to clearly define the areas that should be covered

in a plan. It also covers the use of language, page design and the layout of information so you can create an easy, readable

document. It also give examples of assessments and data collection tools which will help you develop an efficient technology


Quinones,S & Kirshstein, R. (1998) An Educator’s Guide to Evaluating the Use of Technology in Schools and Classrooms. Pelavin

Research Center: U.S. Department of Education.Retrieved February 5th, 2016 from

techguide/handbook2.pdf This website is a very detailed account of how to evaluate a technology plan. This plan includes both

tips and forms that can be used to evaluate each piece of a district’s plan and gauge its effectiveness.

National Center for Technology Planning. (n.d.). Retrieved February 05, 2016, from This website provides

links to several county technology plans in several different states. It also provides a guidebook for “developing an effective

instructional technology plan”. This helps to identify what topics should be covered in each district plan.

(NetAction). (n.d.). The Virtual Activity. Retrieved February 05, 2016, from This article explains the elements needed to successfully create a technology plan.

It divides the plan into categories, explains each one of them and gives detailed information of what each section needs to


Sibley, P. H., & Kimball, C. (98, February 6). Technology Planning Analysis Rubric [PDF]. EDmin Open Systems. Retrieved

February 05, 2016, from Technolgy Planning

Analysis Rubric: This resource is a detailed example of a technology plan rubric. There are 23 criteria used to thoroughly

analyze a technology plan.

Technology in Schools - Chapter 1: Technology Planning and Policies, Technology in Schools: Suggestions, Tools, and

Guidelines for Assessing Technology in Elementary and Secondary Education. (n.d.). Retrieved February 05, 2016, from This document is divided into several sections. Each section focuses

primary on one part of technology plan. In the beginning of each section, you can find guiding questions that will help you decide

what needs to be addressed and how you can write those concerns or solutions in a clear and simple way. There is also a

“sidebar topics” tab that is not related to creating a plan but it’s related to the topics and it talks about classroom experiences of

technology applications, what to expect out of technology, how to fix simple technology problems, the standards connect to

technology application in classrooms and others.

Group Rubric and Average Score for Marietta City Schools Technology Plan

Rubric 0 1 2 3 Score

Non evident Needs work Good/Adequate Excellent

Mission/Visio Missing Mission/Vision Mission/Vision Mission/ Vision statement is clear and 3/3
n Statement Mission/Vision statement is present statement clear and concise. The goals of the plan are
and Goals statement, the but hard to concise but limited achievable, on track with the mission
technological understand. Missing information on either statement and have detailed technological
and instructional either the the technological or and instructional outcomes
outcomes technological or instructional outcomes

Professional Missing A professional The plan states the A clear goal to promote professional 1.9/3
Development professional development plan is needs and technical development for all faculty and staff is
development present but does not level of current presented. Provides recommendations on
goals or the provide a clear goal. personnel. The goal to professional, personal, or monetary
development Recommendations on promote professional incentives. There are several research-
goal is not incentives are not development is based, and relevant, professional
relevant to the given or are unclear, present. development programs outlined. Funding
needs of all staff no funding source is Recommendations on sources are provided.
mentioned incentives are given

Assessment Assessment is Technology has been The technology plan Technology plan has been assessed and 2.2/3
of Services absent, assessed and has been assessed analyzed for the purpose of providing

incomplete or analyzed, but may not and analyzed for the information on decision about teaching,
not submitted include summaries or purpose of providing learning, technology resources, and
information from all feedback about the provides information for further technology
elements in the impact of technology decisions. The assessment provides a
technology surveys on most curriculum comprehensive view of the use of
areas technology and districts vision

Accessibility There are no Students with System considers Strategies and goals are provided to detail 2.1/3
of goals in place to disabilities are some disabilities and accessibility. Systems are accessible to all
Technology address mentioned in the has goals in place, but users, including those with disabilities. All
Resources accessibility. technology plan, but does not cater to a computer labs and classrooms are fully
(Americans There is no there is no clear goal wide range of users accessible to all users. The district and
with system in place as to how they will be schools understands and provides access to
Disabilities to address accommodated the increasing demand of technology for
Act) concerns students and faculty receiving homebound

Budget No budget Plan provides very Plan provides some of Plan provides a budget summary with 2.8/3
provided few details about the the budget details for explicit details on expenses, alternative
budget and how it will expenses, alternative sources of funds and implementation dates
be implemented sources of funds and for:
throughout the implementation dates. 1. Acquisition, maintenance, and
window Implementation dates upgrade of software, hardware,
are realistic and on facilities, and system
track with mission 2. Staff development
statement 3. Technology support
Implementation dates are realistic and on
track with mission statement

Ongoing No plan for The plan provides There is a plan for There is a clear plan of action directly 2.8/3
Evaluation ongoing limited information on evaluating the related to the mission and assessment of
evaluation is the process of purpose of the needs for the program. There is a
evident evaluating the technology plan and standardized process for reviewing and
technology plan the needs for the collecting data, monitoring and evaluating
program professional development and making
changes as needs arise

Individual Rankings

Justification for scoring on the rubric: After reviewing Marietta City Schools 2015-2018 technology plan, each team member
scored the rubric independently. The average for each indicator was collected and submitted on the overall group rubric
above. This is the individual breakdown of each of our evaluations.

Indicator Alison Helena Erica Candice Valerie

Mission/Vision 3 3 2.8 3 3
Statement and

Professional 2 2 2 2 1.5

Assessment of 3 2 3 2 2

Accessibility of 3 2 2.7 2 1

Budget 2 3 3 3 3

Ongoing 3 2 3 3 3

Recommendations for Improvement to the Marietta City Schools 2015-2018 Technology Plan

Mission/Vision Statement and Goals

The mission statement and goals in this plan were very clear and in our opinion, obtainable, within the time frame allocated. Many families
in the Atlanta area do have the privilege to be able to choose if they want to send their children to private or public schools. Many chose
public for the extracurricular activities that are offered in a larger setting. Marietta City Schools addresses the fierce competition and
created a vision statement that clearly identifies their intentions. The goals are something that smaller, more rural districts could one day
hope to strive for. One rater did point out that the district needs to be careful not to mislead readers into thinking they have a system that
will actually monitor or evaluate the use of technology in the home, due to the fact that there is no system control over home usage.

Professional Development
This was our lowest rating on the rubric. Although professional development is mentioned in the plan, what does professional
development look like to Marietta City Schools, meaning what conferences, workshops, etc. do they use on a consistent basis? It was
mentioned in their plan as an area to continue developing, and the funding source was mostly with Title 1 funds. However, no
recommendations on incentives for participants were mentioned, and research-based courses were not highlighted. Marietta has access
to nearby Atlanta, therefore some of the best professional development is offered nearby. It would be nice to see what trainings they are
focusing on for the next 3 years for their employees.

Assessment of Services
The assessment plan is very well developed, detailed and it maintains and monitors student's career/college readiness performance. To
improve the efficiency of this process, baseline information should be present and new data should be added as it becomes available.
(page 28)

Accessibility of Technology Resources

Students with disabilities are mentioned in this plan but there is no strategy to implement changes in schools or to monitor the efficiency
of those resources. Specific guidelines and procedures for utilizing technology with students with disabilities should be included in the
plan and should focus on the training of personnel, allocation of resources and evaluation of its benefits.

This section was very thorough and we rated it very high. Compared to other technology plans we reviewed, this section was meticulously
planned and described. The budget mentions acquiring new hardware and maintaining the technology with funds. It also mentions
different sources of funding if SPLOST should not come through. It also states that it will “develop, plan, and facilitate professional
learning aligned with student and teacher expectations by grade level ranges,” and “utilize an online platform to streamline and

differentiate professional learning opportunities for teachers and staff.” An area of the budget that could be improved is that teachers of
ESOL, speech, gifted, P.E., art, music, and special education were not included in the grade levels to be trained. Maybe this is already
taken care of by central office leaders, but it was not highlighted in the technology plan.

Ongoing Evaluation
Overall this was another strong component to this technology plan. Surveys are distributed to parents, students and teachers. We did find
some areas that could be polished, for example there is no plan to evaluate the quality of learning that students have when they use
technology inside a classroom. A possible solution would be to set up model classrooms where student use technology as a daily process
of inquiry-based learning and to collect data based on student’s performance. This data would be compared to other classrooms where
technology is not used on a regular basis, which could provide documentation of the benefits of technology implementation.