Running head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN 1

Technology Improvement Plan

Leesa Parker

Coastal Carolina University

EDIT 760, Section S118

TECHNOLOGY PLAN 2

Technology Improvement Plan

Throughout this course, I have focused on studying how well my school has been

working toward meeting the International Society for Technology Education’s (ISTE) standards

for administrators. I formulated questions using the indicators for the five standards, and various

district employees answered them. Specific stakeholders who answered some or all of the

questions included the district’s Coordinator of Educational Technology, the Education Leader at

my school, the vice principal at my school, and the teachers who volunteered to anonymously

take the surveys. I also offered my perspective on the issues. Some questions were closed (yes,

no, I don’t know answers) and others were open (extended response). After analyzing the data,

my opinion is that our school and district are poor in meeting ISTE’s vision for reaching the

standards. It is difficult to not include facts and opinions about the district’s involvement because

our school’s initiatives come from them. Since we are part of the overall system, I am taking the

liberty to refer to both the district and the school, especially after obtaining answers from both

district and school administration. Throughout the standard, the different indicators yielded some

common issues within the data. While some of these areas of concerns are stand-alone, a few of

them rely on each other to be rectified. Some are budget intensive fixes, while other issues are a

matter of research and planning.

First, our district has an ineffective vision for technology, this has resulted in an

ineffective plan at the school level. The only directive given from our principal was that

technology “is an expected component of lesson plans” (J. Wallace, 2016). The data showed that

PD is another weak area in our district. Our teachers are often given technology or tools without

proper training and left to simply figure the tools out on their own. This ranges from using

Office365 to the iPads the classrooms were given. There was zero training on either. The next
TECHNOLOGY PLAN 3

two issues certainly rely on each other. One is funding and the other is access to technology. Our

district has minimal funds in the past for devices and tools, so our school relied solely on our

principle to find ways to get devices. We are not a Title I school like the other elementary

buildings, so we do not have the extra funds others schools have. Without money, there can be no

technology. And finally, and the most discussed from the teachers, is the restrictiveness with the

technology we have. Teachers cannot update, install, or access communication and collaboration

tools in order to integrate meaningful technology to the students. Such strong restrictions have

led many teachers to not bother planning with tools, because some excellent resources are not

allowed to be accessed. These five areas of concern need improved in order for us to properly

prepare our students in a technology-rich world. That is the goal of ISTE. This Technology

Improvement Plan offers solutions to improve our ability to meet the standards and give the

students in our school the opportunities that allow them to enhance their learning and keep

current with technology tools.

No matter how much or how little technology an organization may have, if there is no

vision to follow, its stakeholders have no guidance on how to use it to create transformational

learning lessons. Our district needs a district vision for the Educational Leaders to either use for

their schools to follow or to inspire their own vision that aligns with the district. In order for that

to happen, there should be a top-down approach. This would require the District Leadership

(Director of Technology, Coordinator of Instructional Technology, Director of Curriculum, and

Superintendent) to use several guiding documents to create a vision statement for the entire

district. Our district is in a unique situation in that we have an interim superintendent and a new

Director of Technology. I propose this to be worked upon as a draft during the summer months,

and when the permanent superintendent is hired, it can be revised according to his directives.
TECHNOLOGY PLAN 4

Two important sources should be kept as a guide to help in an overall vision, ISTE and the South

Carolina Computer Science and Digital Literacy Standards. The district holds at least one

principal meeting per month, and PD will be led by the district office staff to convey the

expectations of technology implementation for the district. The principals should then be directed

to develop (or use the district’s vision) their own plan for their buildings. Finally, when ready,

principals will hold meetings with staff to communicate the vision and show specific example of

tools teachers can use to build digital literacy, increase student learning, and work toward

achieving the goals within the vision statement. This requires no extra funding for sources or

creation of the statement.

The next two areas of concern are certainly related, if not reliant, on one for the other to

improve--funding and access. While budgeting is a process in which is set based on a finite

number in the district office, there are several options to increase the amount of money for

allocation of tools to allow equitable distribution of devices. First and foremost, the priority of

budgeting for technology must change. We now have an impressive infrastructure able to handle

heavy usage. According to the Technology Plan (2016), the budget for improving infrastructure

went into the millions of dollars. Now that it is in place, those monies will be held specifically

for updating classroom technology and supporting the 1-1 initiative. Also, the Director of

Technology and Coordinator of Instructional Technology will work closely with the Coordinator

of Special Projects to procure funding through grants such as the federal, state, and perhaps local

grants. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology (OET; n.d.)

stresses the importance of strategic partners to help with budgeting issues. OET suggests

negotiating more favorable rate with others, using local or regional businesses that may have a

stake in the graduates being digitally literate, or leverage the local college, in which we have a
TECHNOLOGY PLAN 5

PD partnership with, to boost technology and educational resources (n.d.). With our school being

fully funded, classrooms can now be updated, and a 1:1 initiative can be rolled out. Each

classroom, conference room, and the library will be outfitted with new Dell 70 Interactive Touch

Monitors, mounted on mobile carts. At 52 spaces for boards, the cost would be approximately

$278,000. PreK-first grade will receive enough iPad Pros for each student, which is

approximately $110,000 for 175 students. For the remaining second through fourth grades, there

will be a mixture of Chromebooks and iPads. Each student will receive a Lenovo 500e

Chromebook for their 1:1 device, and each classroom will hold five iPads. This allows maximum

capabilities for productivity across platforms. The cost for this initiative is $168,700. Each

hallway will install a 3-D printer for STEAM activities in the science labs, which will cost

$10,000. A reserve fund will be held for apps, specific equipment, adaptive technology for

special needs, and special requests for teachers’ innovative ideas for obtaining new technology

(green screen equipment, lighting, podcasting equipment, for example). This should be no less

than $50,000 per school year.

Another weak area found within my research is the lack of professional development

opportunities teachers and administrators have to learn about and implement technology. With all

of the new equipment equitably distributed, it will be critical to provide these PD opportunities.

The first part of this important step is to provide the building with its own Technology Coach.

This would be an additional staff member added to the school, could be $45,000. She will be

available for staff development, co-teaching, individual training, or whatever teachers request as

a need. One large part of the coach’s job will demonstrate how to integrate ISTE’s and SC’s

Digital Literacy standards across the curriculum. As a part of the budgeting, the school will

leverage Dell into a two-year contract to provide training and technology repairs. Teachers
TECHNOLOGY PLAN 6

already have knowledge on how to operate iPads, so the coach will continue to help teachers best

use those in effective ways. This PD will be differentiated for the teachers; those who are more

advanced will learn something different than those who are novices. There will be one staff

meeting a month designated as a technology meeting, which will be run by whomever the

principal sees fit. The district will provide funds for the principal to attend technology conference

to stay up-to-date on the latest tools for classroom use. A Technology Committee will meet once

a month and also be sent to EdTech for further professional development to bring back to the

building.

Finally, and the most discussed issue among the teachers, is the extreme restrictiveness

teachers have to links, apps, tools, and even devices. Tools that allow communication and

collaboration, such as OneDrive, Office365 and Google Classrooms, will be open for teachers

and students to use. This will also solve the problem of productivity storage. This is free, as our

district already has Office365 and Google Classroom is also a free service. Training on these

tools will provided either by the Technology Coach, or through live online training, which is

often free. This could be done as a part of the monthly meetings, if needed, or through co-

teaching, if requested. iPads need to be less restricted for the teachers to simply be able to update

them so they work properly. Each grade level will have their own log-ins to be able to easily

update their devices so they can be used when needed. App requests will go through a less

restrictive process, as well, and it will be local--left to the principal, instead of going through

three different people (including the principal) and many weeks of waiting to obtain the app on

the iPad. Perhaps teachers will need to be a part of a digital citizenship discussion, and it will be

mandatory that students also participate during their weekly computer lab time.
TECHNOLOGY PLAN 7

Conclusion.

Instituting both a district and a school vision statement for technology signifies to the

teachers and the students that technology is a priority in the district. This will offer guidance to

principals to create their own vision. An outcome of posting clear goals will not only build

digital literacy, but with effective implantation, could result in transformational learning, leading

to an increase in student learning and achievement.

Procuring appropriate funding may be difficult, but it is necessary to distribute

technology for the 1:1 initiative. One cannot happen without the other. With proper

appropriations, equitable distribution will happen and special needs will be addressed. The

district will not be lopsided in its number of devices, creating more of a digital culture in one

area than another. Teachers will be provided with up-to-date interactive boards, which are less

expensive, and much less money on maintenance than the current (some first generation)

projector boards. This will not only keep the teacher up-to-date on technology but will allow her

to use the board for more interactive learning activities for students.

Training to use technology effectively is often costly, but it is crucial that our school do a

better job with strategic partnering with our new devices and PD. I think the single most effective

way to get teachers on board with technology is to provide them a coach who has the knowledge,

drive, and specific job to help them. Many teachers want to use technology and those same

teachers want to increase student learning, but many do not know how to use one to help the

other. Just throwing devices into a classroom does nothing for student learning, we have some,

and see no difference. But like having a vision statement for technology, teachers need guidance

on how integrate effectively.

TECHNOLOGY PLAN 8

Finally, lifting the restrictive component of students and teachers being on the use of

available (and free tools) will not only allow teachers the freedom to pick and choose what they

want to teach, but it will allow productivity to become more streamlined for the students. They

can access their work easily, use communication tools to collaborate when appropriate, and have

storage that will follow them specifically throughout their time in the district. Students will

become more familiar with digital tools needed to foster digital literacy.

I am aware that just having all of these areas of concerned fixed does not automatically

lead to higher test scores, student learning, or even teacher buy-in to technology. I know I have

students who prefer reading an actual book instead of on an iPad. Some students like drawing

and coloring a poster instead of designing an infographic online. That is okay. That is what

student-centered learning is about—choice. However, there are worlds out there that students

may only be able to access through technology. Not giving students the opportunity to access

holds them back in today’s digital culture. There are young teachers and seasoned teachers alike

who feel like they should be able to teach what they want how they want, and they do not like

nor wish to use technology in their classroom. There is no mandate, as a matter of fact, so they

may do as they wish. But I will argue are we preparing them for the following year? The next

school? Graduation? The work force? College? The answer is no. We do a disservice not

providing the education that prepares the students for the future. Technology will always be a

part of our lives. My district does not have the funds to implement this plan, but that does not

mean we cannot do a better job implementing what we do have. We need technology teacher

leaders, support from the district, and continued support from the principals for innovative

projects. I look forward to this upcoming year to see what positive changes arise with the new

Director of Technology at the district office.

TECHNOLOGY PLAN 9

References

International Society for Technology in Education. (2018). ISTE standards for administrators.

Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-A_PDF.pdf

Office of Educational Technology. (n.d.). Funding digital learning. Retrieved from

https://tech.ed.gov/funding/

Wallace, J. (2016). Curriclum and instruction expectations [PowerPoint presentaion]. York, SC:

Hunter Street Elementary School.

York School District 1. (2016). Technology plan. Retrived from

https://ed.sc.gov/policy/education-laws-legislation/state-technology-plans/sc-school-

districts-technology-plan-requirements/south-carolina-district-technology-

plans/technology-plans-and-approval-letters-june-

2016/07272016approvallettersandtechplans/york-school-distr1/