Technology Evaluation Plan

Forsyth County, Georgia

FRIT 7232 Visionary Leadership in Instructional Technology

Christian Gray, Matt Morris, Austin Smith, Jennifer Taylor

September 20, 2015

Week 1
http://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/cms/lib3/GA01000373/Centricity/Domain/33/2012-2015TechPlanforweb.pdf
 How are the plans similar? How are the plans Who was involved in
different? creating the plan?

All were three years Cobb used SPLOST money

All had vision and mission Palm Beach County had

statements chart showing the different
initiatives and the cost over
three years

All had goals

Standards of Digital Citizenship. Do the plans have this?

WEEK 2

Technology Rubric Ideas

http://www.rcampus.com/rubricshowc.cfm?sp=yes&code=X8BAA5&
https://ed.fnal.gov/lincon/staff_rubric.shtml
http://course1.winona.edu/shatfield/air/technology%20planning%20analysis.pdf
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~lenewayr/Technology%20Plan%20Rubric.htm

Group Rubric for Evaluating the Technology Plan

Indicator Exceeds (7-10 Meets (4- Does not meet Score
points) 7points) (0-3 points)

Goals The goals Most goals Goals are neither 9.75

included are included are concrete nor
concrete and concrete and clear. Most are
clear. They are clear. Most not accompanied
designed to meet goals are by associated
the needs of the designed to meet strategies.
school system the needs of the
and school system
accompanied by and
a strategy for accompanied by
meeting the goal. a strategy for
meeting the goal.

Professional There are several Professional No professional 6.5

Development research-based development development
professional programs are programs are
development offered but not available or no
 programs clearly outlined. funding sources
outlined. The Minimal are mentioned.
programs are information
designed to help involving
teachers funding is
implement and provided.
target their
instructional
practices to drive
student
achievement.
Funding sources
are also
provided.

An assessment Provides a Provides a vague No assessment is 9

of detailed and assessment of provided.
telecommunicati comprehensive telecommunicati
on services, assessment of on services,
hardware, telecommunicati hardware,
software, and on services, software, and
other services hardware, other services
needed software, and needed.
other services
needed.

Accessibility of Strategies and Systems There are no 6.5

technology goals are consider some goals in place to
resources provided to disabilities but address
(Americans with detail do not cater to a accessibility.
Disabilities Act) accessibility. wide range of There is no
Systems are users. There are system in place
accessible to all a few strategies to address
users, including and goals in concerns.
those with place.
disabilities. All
computer labs
and classrooms
are fully
accessible to all
users.

Budget Budget figures Some budgets No funding 3

are included in figures are sources are
detail for each included but are provided and
year covered by estimates. budget figures
 the plan. Funding sources are not detailed.
Funding are mentioned
strategies and but not detailed.
sources are
provided.
Te

Plan for the Technology plan Technology plan Technology plan 8.25
future is concise (no is somewhat is not concise
longer than 3 concise (3-5 (over 5 years) or
years) and years) and has not stated an
contains a contains a end date. It does
contingency plan contingency plan not contain a
for constantly for constantly plan for updating
updating to updating to to newer,
newer, cheaper, newer, cheaper, cheaper, and
and more and more more efficient
efficient efficient programs instead
programs instead programs instead of locking the
of locking the of locking the district into
district into district into outdated
outdated outdated resources.
resources. resources.

Ongoing A detailed An Ongoing There is no 6.75

Evaluation Ongoing Evaluation Ongoing
Evaluation process is Evaluation plan
process is included but it is included.
included. It not very
includes, but is detailed. It may
not limited to, have some, but
data collection not all of the
strategies, data following: Data
analyzation collection
strategies, and strategies, data
specific methods analyzation
used to strategies,
determine methods used to
success. There determine
is also a process success.
in place to make
changes to the
plan if there are
any new
developments or
opportunities.
Total points 49.75/70 points
achieved Score: 71%

Our rankings:

Indicator Austin Matt Jennifer Christy

Goals 10 9 10 10
The goals were Goals are clear The goals are
clear and and are aligned clear.
concrete. They with the needs of
were the school
accompanied by system.
a detailed
strategy to meet
the goal. They
also included the
person
responsible for
making sure
each goal was
met.

Professional 7 7 6 6
Development The professional Score would The professional Pending funding
development have been development $240,000. This
program was higher if secured plan was listed funding is not
outlined but not funding had with some detailed nor
detailed. The been detailed. details but with secured
plan says (Most of their unsecured funds
“Pending funding is listed it’s not
availability as coming from guaranteed.
of general
funds, operating funds)
Their plan for
$20,300
professional
from development
general seems well
operating thought out.
fund” but does
not elaborate.

An assessment 10 9 9 8
of The plan, under They mentioned Goals listed, While there is a
telecommunicati section II: their software programs listed listing of how
on services, Current Reality, programs used details are so- many computers
lists hardware and the student- so; then there’s and a list of
hardware,
and software computeration the issue of software, there
software, and available. In the (3:1) They also funding again, is not a listing of
other services next section, it mentioned their no money needed services,
needed also details that eventual goal of currently hardware and
Continual 1:1, but they do secured means software.
observations not have the less likely to get
are conducted funding for that it later on.
to determine the at this time. I
level of took that to be
technology their biggest
integration need.
occurring at
each school.
These
observations
assist school
administrators in
making better
decisions
concerning
professional
development to
ensure that
teachers are
creating 21st
century
classrooms.

Accessibility of 7 6 6 7
technology The plan says I agree that the The plan is too Listing of how
resources that technology plan does not go vague on this current
(Americans with is accessible to into any real issue. It says technology can
everyone detail on how technology will be used with
Disabilities Act)
including students with be accessible to disabled
students with disabilities can all students but students,
disabilities benefit from the details in however, does
however it does technology. regards to not include
not go into detail training, increased
on what is materials, and integration to
changed to additional close the
make it technology achievement
accessible. needed aren’t gap.
specified.

Budget 3 3 3 3
Each area of All funding Appears that all All funding
funding is broad comes from the funding is states pending.
and says “general fund,” coming from the There is not a
pending. While which is never general fund via detail of where
this does allow elaborated on the board, but is this funding will
 them more with any detail. currently come from.
flexibility, it does Maybe this is pending. SPLOST, grants,
not seem included on a Without secure general fund,
concrete. Also, different funds the plan budgeted from
while budget document but could stall or tax dollars, etc.
estimates or must be scored even be tabled if
maximums are low without more they (the board)
listed, nothing is detail. so chooses.
detailed on what
the money will
be spent on.

Plan for the 10 9 8 6

future Plan is concise Plan is the Plan is there and Desires are
and is 3 years appropriate is projected to listed for moving
long. There is length (3 years) be 3 years. It away from
also a plan in and mentions does mention traditional
place to ensure the district’s plan moving towards textbooks and
classroom to move towards digital textbooks toward results
implementation a 1:1 ratio when and PBL, but is based learning
of the goals the they can secure unclear on who such as PBL.
technology plan more funding. will help with However, there
addresses. (Funding never this, pay for this is not an outline
really explained) and how the of how this will
transition will be
occur. accomplished.

Ongoing 10 7 5 5
Evaluation There is an There is an Although the There is 2
evaluation evaluation evaluation plan paragraphs
method listed for method listed, is listed, it’s about meetings
each specific but it is not unclear how the held each week,
goal. The plan nearly as plan will work however, there
also lists the detailed as some and the specifics is not a detailed
persons of the examples being examined. plan of how
responsible for that we evaluation is
each goal so researched. (ex: conducted and
there is the one what indicators
accountability. completed by are being
the US Dept of examined at
Education these meetings.
http://www.au.af.
mil/au/awc/awcg
ate/ed-
techguide/handb
ook2.pdf)
Recommendations for improvement to the Forsyth Technology plan.

Pending funding $240,000. The plan is the appropriate length needed to ensure the district does
not get bogged down with outdated technology (3 years) and mentions the district’s plan to
move towards a 1:1 ratio when they can secure more funding, but unfortunately this funding is
not detailed nor does it provide information of how it will be secured (sources). While there is a
listing of how many computers and a list of software, there is not a listing of needed services,
hardware and software. Listing of how current technology can be used with disabled students,
however, does not include increased integration to close the achievement gap. All funding
states pending. There is not a detail of where this funding will come from. The plan does not
mention SPLOST, grants, general fund, budgeted from tax dollars, etc. Desires are listed for
moving away from traditional textbooks and toward results based learning such as PBL.
However, there is not an outline of how this will be accomplished. There are 2 paragraphs
about meetings held each week, however, there is not a detailed plan of how evaluation is
conducted and what indicators are being examined at these meetings.

While the plan does state that technology is fully accessible to all students, regardless of the
student's race, ethnicity, gender, family income, geographic location, or disability, it does not
detail how. There should be a list of accommodations that are in place to make it fully
accessible.

There should also be a list of possible professional development opportunities or specific

classes offered. While it does mention professional development and the pending funding, it
does not mention specifically what will be developed.

There is an evaluation method listed, but it is not nearly as detailed as some of the examples
that we researched. (ex: the one completed by the US Dept of Education
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ed-techguide/handbook2.pdf)
A better evaluation plan might have helped prevent the lack of detail in the budget. This plan is
full of forward thinking and solid ideas, but many of those ideas seem to be “wishful thinking.”

I agree with all this lack of funding, lack of specifics about professional development and
accessibility to all, the plan is just a wish list.

Technology Plan Resources (resource, annotation and brief paragraph describing relevance
to this project).

Resource Annotation Brief Paragraph Source type (i.e.

describing the published books,
relevance to our work scholarly journal
articles, existing
school technology
plans, information
from professional
associations/organiza
tions or government
 agencies, and
published magazine
articles)

http://tech.ed.gov/net National Education http://tech.ed.gov/net Government Agency

p/ Technology Plan | p/teaching-prepare-
Office of Educational and-connect/
Technology. (n.d.). This site explains the
Retrieved September correlation of
13, 2015. technology and how
to best use the
resources to support
teaching and
enhance content
delivery to the end
user (the student).
This site has several
different types of
technology
integration within an
educational
environment. On the
page above (link
within the master
annotated link
provided) there is a
great chart that
describes the
distribution of
resources.

http://www.nctp.com/ See, J. (1992) The Although the Scholarly Journal

html/john_see.cfm Computing Teacher, information is over Article
Vol. 19, Number 8: 20+ years old, it is
Minnesota still very relevant as
Department of to how a school
Education. technology plan
should be created.
He outlines the
importance of
focusing on short
term goals, creative
applications, and
making sure that the
vision of the program
goes beyond simply
enhancing the
curriculum. He also
details the
importance of staff
 professional
development and
training, and how
necessary it is that
the plan is both cost
effective and is
worked into the
integration of the
curriculum.

Georgia department Retrieved September The Georgia Government Agency

of education 5th, 2015 from Department of
technology services 3 https://www.gadoe.or Education
year technology plan. g/Technology- Technology Services
(2015). Services/Documents/ 3 year technology
3%20Year plan is a great
%20Technology example of what a
%20Strategy district’s plan should
%20White%20Paper look like. It includes
%20May sections that detail
%203%202013_web the vision, goals,
posted.pdf data, initiatives, tools,
and services of the
state. Although each
of the district’s plans
may look different
from the state’s, most
of the same
information is
covered including
professional learning
and budget.
Perry, J.F. (1994). Retrieved September Even though this is Scholarly Journal
Technology Planning: 10th, 2015 from an older article by
Recipe for Success. http://www.nctp.com/t technology
In J. Willis, B. Robin p.recipe.html standards, it has
& D. Willis (Eds.), some great guidance
Proceedings of and suggestions. It’s
Society for interesting to look at
Information what researchers
Technology & found important for
Teacher Education technology plans in
International the 90s and useful to
Conference 1994 (pp. compare and contrast
349-353). it to today’s times.
Chesapeake, VA: One thing that the
Association for the article noted was that
Advancement of even though many
Computing in schools have
Education (AACE). technology plans in
place, they vary
greatly between
schools. The aim of
this article is to create
a uniform plan and to
explain why that is
important to schools,
districts, and states.

http://www.au.af.mil/a Quinones,S & This website is a very Government Agency

u/awc/awcgate/ed- Kirshstein, R. (1998) detailed account of
techguide/handbook2 An Educator’s Guide how to evaluate a
.pdf to Evaluating the Use technology plan. This
of Technology in plan includes both
Schools and tips and forms that
Classrooms. Pelavin can be used to
Research Center: evaluate each piece
U.S. Department of of a district’s plan and
Education. gauge its
effectiveness.

http://www.ets.org/Me Coley, R.J., This report brings Professional

dia/Research/pdf/PIC Cradler, J., Engel, together information Organization- Private
COMPCLSS.pdf P.K., Computers on the issues of Non-Profit
and Classrooms. access, use, organization for
effectiveness, testing
The Status of
teacher training,
Technology in U.S. courseware, and
Schools Policy cost. Although this
 Information material is 16 years
Center, old much of what was
Educational Testing stated is still relevant
Service. Princeton, in most school
systems. This
NJ. 1999.
research has a great
chart on page 59 that
shows a good
breakdown of the
cost to start up and
maintain technology
in schools,
specifically the
national costs, cost
per average school
and even down to
enrolled students.

http://www.carrollk12. Carroll County This technology plan Existing School

org/Assets/file/Resea is one we used for Technology Plan
rch%20& comparison to other
%20Accountability/Do technology plans
cuments%20and from districts within
%20Guidelines/CCP and outside of
S_Technology_Integr Georgia. Each plan
ation_Plan_2008.pdf contains a basic
framework and within
the state of Georgia
followed a similar
template. The
interesting plan was
from outside of the
state. The Palm
Beach plan was
presented as a series
of web pages within
the district website
breaking each
component into it’s
own section on the
site.

http://www.sccpss.co Chatham County Existing School

m/Documents/PDF/T Technology Plan
echPlan2012-
2015.pdf

http://www.cobbk12.o Cobb County Existing School

rg/centraloffice/instru Technology Plan
ctionaltechnology/tec
hplan/2012_2015_cc
sd_district_technolog
y_plan.pdf

Forsyth County Existing School

Technology Plan

https://publish.gwinne Gwinnett County Existing School

tt.k12.ga.us/gcps/wc Technology Plan
m/connect/f7343ec6-
409b-4f2a-8ace-
e0bde9392c12/GCP
STechPlan2012-
2015.pdf?
MOD=AJPERES

http://www.palmbeac Palm Beach County Existing School

hschools.org/techpla Technology Plan
n/

http://www.thethinkin www.thethinkingstick.c This article is from an EduBlog

gstick.com/download/ om/planning-for-21st- educator who now
10/ century- consults on
technologies/ implementing
Jan 7, 2008 technology in
schools. In this
article he gives a
couple examples of
technology plans that
he has seen to be
successful and that
would be little cost to
start up for schools.
He makes a great
point that all
technology plans
need to be fluid; open
for revising and
flexible depending on
every changing
technologies. He
details the
importance of
professional
development/training
for teachers, the
budget. He also
stresses the point
that students should
be the center/focus of
 the plan, and that no
plan is easy to
implement regardless
of how it looks on
paper.

Technology Plan - Templates for a technology plan.

http://www.baylor.edu/business/mis/nonprofits/doc.php/192140.pdf
This website has great tips for developing a technology plan:

http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm
I really like what he said about a technology plan needing to be short term because of how
quickly technology changes. According to him, a 5 year plan is really too long to develop a
quality plan.
I think we could use the parameters he has set in his article to create an awesome rubric for
scoring the plan.

The following are tips that he has given for writing an effective technology plan.
· Effective technology plans are short term, not long term.
· Effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology.
· Effective technology plans go beyond enhancing the curriculum.
· Effective technology plans define technology as more than computers.
· Effective technology plans stress integration of technology into the curriculum.
· Effective technology plans are tied to staff development plans.
· Effective technology plans make technology part of the daily cost of doing
business.
· Effective technology plans have critical attributes based upon research.
· Effective technology plans are developed by the staff members who will
implement the plan.
· Effective technology plans focus on a vision.
Annotated Bibliography

National Education Technology Plan | Office of Educational Technology. (n.d.). Retrieved

September 13, 2015.
Retrieved from: http://tech.ed.gov/netp/teaching-prepare-and-connect/
This site explains the correlation of technology and how to best use the resources to
support teaching and enhance content delivery to the end user (the student). This site
has several different types of technology integration within an educational environment.
On the page above (link within the master annotated link provided) there is a great chart
that describes the distribution of resources.

See, J. (1992) The Computing Teacher, Vol. 19, Number 8: Minnesota Department of
Education.
He outlines the importance of focusing on short term goals, creative applications, and making
sure that the vision of the program goes beyond simply enhancing the curriculum. He also
details the importance of staff professional development and training, and how necessary it is
that the plan is both cost effective and is worked into the integration of the curriculum.

Perry, J.F. (1994). Technology Planning: Recipe for Success. In J. Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference 1994 (pp. 349-353). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
Retrieved September 10th, 2015 from http://www.nctp.com/tp.recipe.html
Even though this is an older article by technology standards, it has some great guidance and
suggestions. It’s interesting to look at what researchers found important for technology plans in
the 90s and useful to compare and contrast it to today’s times. One thing that the article noted
was that even though many schools have technology plans in place, they vary greatly between
schools. The aim of this article is to create a uniform plan and to explain why that is important
to schools, districts, and states.

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 September 10th, 2015 from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ed-
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.

Coley, R.J., Cradler, J., Engel, P.K., Computers and Classrooms. The Status of
Technology in U.S. Schools Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
Princeton, NJ. 1999.
Retrieved September 10th, 2015 from
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICCOMPCLSS.pdf
This report brings together information on the issues of access, use, effectiveness, teacher
training, courseware, and cost. Although this material is 16 years old much of what was stated is
still relevant in most school systems. This research has a great chart on page 59 that shows a
good breakdown of the cost to start up and maintain technology in schools, specifically the
national costs, cost per average school and even down to enrolled students.

Retrieved September 10th, 2015 from http://www.carrollk12.org/Assets/file/Research%20&

%20Accountability/Documents%20and
%20Guidelines/CCPS_Technology_Integration_Plan_2008.pdf
This technology plan is one we used for comparison to other technology plans from districts
within and outside of Georgia. Each plan contains a basic framework and within the state of
Georgia followed a similar template. The interesting plan was from outside of the state. The
Palm Beach plan was presented as a series of web pages within the district website breaking
each component into it’s own section on the site.

www.thethinkingstick.com/planning-for-21st-century-technologies/
Jan 7, 2008
http://www.thethinkingstick.com/download/10/
This article is from an educator who now consults on implementing technology in schools. In
this article he gives a couple examples of technology plans that he has seen to be successful
and that would be little cost to start up for schools. He makes a great point that all technology
plans need to be fluid; open for revising and flexible depending on every changing technology.
He details the importance of professional development/training for teachers, the budget. He also
stresses the point that students should be the center/focus of the plan, and that no plan is easy
to implement regardless of how it looks on paper.

http://www.sccpss.com/Documents/PDF/TechPlan2012-2015.pdf

http://www.cobbk12.org/centraloffice/instructionaltechnology/techplan/2012_2015_ccsd_district_
technology_plan.pdf
https://publish.gwinnett.k12.ga.us/gcps/wcm/connect/f7343ec6-409b-4f2a-8ace-
e0bde9392c12/GCPSTechPlan2012-2015.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

http://www.palmbeachschools.org/techplan/