1

Technology Plan Evaluation

Abigail Goldin, Natania Riley, and Stephen Roper

Technology Plan Resources

 2

Anderson, L. (2020). Making Dreams Come True!—How To Write A Technology Plan. From
http://www.nctp.com/articles/dreams.pdf
This resource provides explanations of eight steps to follow in writing a technology
plan: Gaining administrative approval, forming a school committee, considering
consultants, conducting a needs assessment and inventory, reviewing and analyzing data,
preparing the document, implementing the plan, and evaluating the implementation of the
plan.

District/School Technology Plan Template Your Blueprint for Success - PDF Free Download-A
resource from Scientific Learning—http://www.scientificlearning.com. From
https://docplayer.net/20022774-District-school-technology-plan-template-your-blueprint-
for-success.html
This resource looks valuable for analyzing technology plans. It’s a straightforward,
simple, fill-in-the-blanks document with most or all categories needed for developing a
technology plan. Then, there is a very handy checklist at the end that could be modified
to use in a rubric for evaluating technology plans.

GaDOE Technology Plan Rubric 2013. (2013).

Available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-
Y1HFjdLFRSZbDHCdTDfogwuJKvi3pzs/edit
This document developed by the Georgia Department of Education is a great resource
for developing technology plans and rubrics for evaluating them. It is in an attractive,
fully ready, technology plan chart format with very specific guidelines for what should be
included in every part of a technology plan. It can be easily adapted for a rubric for
evaluating technology plans.

Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan
Update. (2017). From https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
This resource is a large document (111 pages) put out by the U.S. Department of
Education’s Office of Educational Technology. Its comprehensive scope covers five
areas of Learning—Engaging and Empowering Learning through Technology, Teaching
—Teaching With Technology, Leadership—Creating a Culture and Conditions for
Innovation and Change, Assessment—Measuring for Learning, and Infrastructure—
Enabling Access and Effective Use. While the scope of this document is much larger than
our purposes require, it can be used for evaluating technology plans.

Schools and Libraries (E Rate) Program Technology Planning. (2016). From

https://www.usac.org/wp-content/uploads/e-rate/documents/Tools/USAC-SL-
Technology-Planning.pdf
Pages 9-11 of this resource, under “Questions to Consider in Technology Planning,”
provides five areas to use when developing (and evaluating) technology plans, along with
sub-groupings of questions under each area. These, and the checklist on page 12, could
prove valuable for developing a technology plan evaluation rubric.
 3

School Technology Needs Assessment. (2005). From https://www.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2013/05/School-Technology-Needs-Assesment-STNA.pdf
This document, while it doesn’t address technology plan assessment per se, is a survey
form designed to be given to educational professionals for school technology needs
assessment. It provides many ideas for items to include in a technology plan, and
purposes for the plans themselves. The categories assessed by the survey are Supportive
Environment for Technology Use, Professional Development, Teaching and Learning,
and Impact of Technology.

See, J. (1992). National Center for Technology Planning: Developing Effective Technology
Plans. From http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm
This resource is somewhat dated (1992) but it still provides some timeless tips and
things important to consider when developing a technology plan, like focusing on
applications rather than technology, going beyond enhancing the curriculum, stressing the
integration of technology into classrooms, tying plans to staff development, and dealing
with budgeting.

Six-Step Process in Creating a Technology Plan. From https://dese.mo.gov/quality-

schools/education-technology/six-step-process-creating-technology-plan
This resource provides very specific information regarding guidelines for selecting,
organizing, and working with technology plan committees. It also provides guiding
questions on committees and other aspects of technology plans that would be helpful in
setting up a rubric to evaluate district technology plans.

Thirteen Ed Online - Creating a Technology Plan. From

https://www.thirteen.org/edonline/primer/techplan.html
This resource highlights vital components of a technology plan, to include: An
overview and a mission statement; specific goals and objectives for academic outcomes;
existing resources; new software, hardware, and other resources the system would need to
acquire; training plans for teachers and students; details on maintaining new resources;
cost and funding; and assessment of new technology.

Tucker, C. (2019). In Tech Rollouts, Don't Forget the Teachers. Educational Leadership, 76(5),
55-59. From https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=6&sid=d118d1b2-9205-4133-a672-9581d34f0beb%40sessionmgr101
This resource provides guidance in instituting technology initiatives, emphasizing the
importance of creating a positive climate in which goals and visions are emphasized to
those who will be implementing new technology initiatives in their classrooms, the
classroom teachers. The article promotes the necessity of this, along with professional
learning and coaching culture, all before any new technology should even be purchased.

Rubric for Evaluating School District Technology Plans


Well-defined
Vision for ● The plan includes an overall
mission statement that
Technology communicates all of the
Use following:
1. the primary
purpose,
2. the primary duties,
3. the core beliefs
and values, and
4. the accessibility of
system technology.
● The plan includes clear vision
statements (usually 10-15
bulleted sentences) that
communicate specific areas
of impact and/or
improvement.
● The plan includes a clear
description of how
technology will be used to
deliver rigorous academic
courses (e.g., Georgia Virtual
School, video conferencing,
video streaming, and web
based instruction).
Goals, ● Based on the vision, data
collection, and the gap
Strategies, analysis, clear and concrete
and goals are established in all of
Benchmarks the following categories:
1. Instructional uses
of technology,
2. Administrative
uses of technology,
3. Parent/community
uses of technology,
and
4. System readiness
(staff technical
competencies/attit
udes).
● Each goal is accompanied by
a process/task for meeting
various components of the
goal(s).
Needs clarification
● The plan includes an overall
mission statement that
communicates at least two
of the following:
1. the primary
purpose,
2. the primary
duties,
3. the core beliefs
and values, and
4. the accessibility of
system
technology.
● The plan needs more
specific vision statements
(usually 10-15 bulleted
sentences) that
communicate specific areas
of impact and/or
improvement.
● The plan needs a clearer
description of how
technology will be used to
deliver rigorous academic
courses (e.g., Georgia Virtual
School, video conferencing,
video streaming, and web
based instruction).
● Based on the vision, data
collection, and the gap
analysis, goals are
established at least two of
the following categories:
1. Instructional uses
of technology,
2. Administrative
uses of
technology,
3. Parent/community
uses of
technology, and
4. System readiness
(staff technical
competencies/atti
tudes).
● Some goals are
accompanied by a
process/task for meeting
various components of the
4
Beginning
● The plan does not include an
overall mission statement, or
its mission statement
communicates one or fewer
of the following:
1. the primary
purpose,
2. the primary duties,
3. the core beliefs and
values, and
4. the accessibility of
system technology.
● The plan does not include
specific vision statements
(usually 10-15 bulleted
sentences) that communicate
specific areas of impact
and/or improvement.
● The plan does not describe
how technology will be used
to deliver rigorous academic
courses (e.g., Georgia Virtual
School, video conferencing,
video streaming, and web
based instruction).
● Based on the vision, data
collection, and the gap
analysis, goals are
established at one or fewer
of the following categories:
1. Instructional uses
of technology,
2. Administrative uses
of technology,
3. Parent/community
uses of technology,
and
4. System readiness
(staff technical
competencies/attit
udes).
● No goals are accompanied by
a process/task for meeting
various components of the
goal(s).

● Each goal is accompanied by
benchmarks that serve as
tangible indicators of
successful progress toward
goal completion.
Current ● Access toTechnology/Data
Sources: Identified data
Reality sources (such as annual
(assessment technology inventory) are
of collected and cited to
telecommunic determine system members’
current level of access to
ation services, computer hardware,
hardware, instructional software, and
software, and the Internet.
other services
● Technology Use: Collected
needed) data is used to determine
the following:
1. Instructional uses
of technology to
include digital and
online resources
2. Administrative
uses of technology
to include digital
and online
resources
3. Parent/community
uses of technology
● Gap Analysis: Collected data
is fully analyzed to determine
the gap between what levels
of technology access is
needed to achieve the vision
and what is currently
available.
Analysis includes trends
across subgroups in the
school system.
Professional ● Professional Development
programs are clearly
Development outlined.
● Funding sources of all
professional development
are provided.
● Local professional
development programs are
goal(s).
● Some goals are
accompanied by
benchmarks that serve as
tangible indicators of
successful progress toward
goal completion
● Access toTechnology/Data
Sources: Identified data
sources (such as annual
technology inventory) are
partially collected and cited
to determine system
members’ current level of
access to computer
hardware, instructional
software, and the Internet.
● Technology Use: Collected
data is used to determine at
least two the following:
1. Instructional uses
of technology to
include digital and
online resources
2. Administrative
uses of technology
to include digital
and online
resources
3. Parent/community
uses of technology
● Gap Analysis: Collected data
is partially analyzed to
determine the gap between
what levels of technology
access is needed to achieve
the vision and what is
currently available.
Analysis may not include
trends across subgroups in
the school system.
● Professional Development
programs are somewhat
outlined.
● Funding sources of some
professional development
are provided.
● Local professional
development programs may
5
● No goals are accompanied by
benchmarks that serve as
tangible indicators of
successful progress toward
goal completion
● Access toTechnology/Data
Sources: Identified data
sources (such as annual
technology inventory) are not
collected and cited to
determine system members’
current level of access to
computer hardware,
instructional software, and
the Internet.
● Technology Use: Collected
data is used to determine
one or fewer of the following:
1. Instructional uses
of technology to
include digital and
online resources
2. Administrative uses
of technology to
include digital and
online resources
3. Parent/community
uses of technology
● Gap Analysis: Collected data
is not analyzed to determine
the gap between what levels
of technology access is
needed to achieve the vision
and what is currently
available.
● Professional Development
programs are not sufficiently
outlined.
● Funding sources of
professional development
are not provided.
● Local professional
development programs are

consistent with nationally
established criteria for
quality professional
development, with all of the
following characteristics
defined: incentives, self-
directed learning through
online and blended learning
opportunities, and authentic
connections to actual work.
● Professional development
programs promote research-
supported instructional
practices that actively
engage students in their own
learning.
● Professional development
programs help teachers
target their instructional
practices toward student
achievement of GSE
standards.
Budget ● The plan provides a sufficient
budget to acquire and
support all of the following
elements of the plan: the
hardware, software,
professional development,
and other services that will
be needed to implement the
strategy. It includes at least
annual dates.
● The system shows all funding
sources in percentages to
pay for implementing the
strategy.
→Example:
FY12–$80,000 Local Funds,
$20,000–SPLOST;
FY13 estimated $110,000
with 80% Local Funds, 20%
SPLOST funds; and
FY14 $130,000 projected,
with 75% Local Funds, 25%
SPLOST funds, contingent
SPLOST renewal in FY12.
● The budget is addressed for
each strategy. If a strategy
does not require any
funding, it is indicated. For
not be entirely consistent
with nationally established
criteria for quality
professional development,
but include some of the
following characteristics:
incentives, self-directed
learning through online and
blended learning
opportunities, and authentic
connections to actual work.
● Professional development
programs partly promote
research-supported
instructional practices that
actively engage students in
their own learning.
● Professional development
programs partially help
teachers target their
instructional practices
toward student
achievement of GSE
standards.
● The plan provides a
sufficient budget to acquire
some of the elements of the
plan: the hardware,
software, professional
development, and other
services that will be needed
to implement the strategy. It
may not include at least
annual dates.
● The system may not show all
funding sources in
percentages to pay for
implementing the strategy.
● The budget is addressed for
some strategies. If a strategy
does not require any
funding, it may not be
6
not consistent with nationally
established criteria for
quality professional
development, and lack all or
nearly all of the following
characteristics: incentives,
self-directed learning through
online and blended learning
opportunities, and authentic
connections to actual work.
● Professional development
programs partly promote
research-supported
instructional practices that
actively engage students in
their own learning.
● Professional development
programs partially help
teachers target their
instructional practices toward
student achievement of GSE
standards.
● The plan’s budget is
insufficient to acquire the
elements of the plan: the
hardware, software,
professional development,
and other services that will
be needed to implement the
strategy. It may not include
at least annual dates.
● The system does not show
any funding sources in
percentages to pay for
implementing the strategy.
● There is no budget, or the
budget is not addressed for
most strategies. If a strategy
does not require any funding,

→Example:
Monthly parent technology
nights – no funding needed
because of staff volunteers
for FY12, no funding cost
projected for FY13 and FY14,
contingent upon continued
volunteer support.
Communica- ● Strategies for all of the
following are provided:
tion and sharing progress,
Marketing disseminating evaluation
results, encouraging broad
stakeholder involvement,
and marketing the role
technology can play in
helping students achieve the
Georgia Standards of
Excellence (GSE) in
innovative ways.
● Multiple methods of
dissemination and marketing
are used (for example, web-
based resources,
newsletters, meetings, local
media, etc.).
● There is clear evidence that a
regular and consistent
technology plan results from
intra-system collaboration
between the technology
department and system-level
staff development,
curriculum, media, Title I,
special education, and ESOL
personnel.
Accessibility ● The plan fully describes its
commitment to accessibility,
of technology the design of apps, devices,
resources materials, and environments
(Americans that support and enable
with access to content and
educational activities for all
Disabilities learners.
Act)
● The plan fully describes how
it enables students with
disabilities to use content
and participate in activities,
accommodates the individual
learning needs of students,
such as English language
indicated.
● Some strategies for the
following are provided:
sharing progress,
disseminating evaluation
results, encouraging broad
stakeholder involvement,
and marketing the role
technology can play in
helping students achieve the
Georgia Standards of
Excellence (GSE) in
innovative ways.
● At least one method of
dissemination and
marketing is used (for
example, web-based
resources, newsletters,
meetings, local media, etc.).
● There is some evidence that
a regular and consistent
technology plan results from
intra-system collaboration
between the technology
department and system-
level staff development,
curriculum, media, Title I,
special education, and ESOL
personnel.
● The plan has some
description of its
commitment to accessibility,
the design of apps, devices,
materials, and environments
that support and enable
access to content and
educational activities for all
learners.
● The plan has some
description of how it
enables students with
disabilities to use content
and participate in activities,
accommodates the
individual learning needs of
7
it may not be indicated.
● No strategies for the
following are provided:
sharing progress,
disseminating evaluation
results, encouraging broad
stakeholder involvement, and
marketing the role
technology can play in
helping students achieve the
Georgia Standards of
Excellence (GSE) in innovative
ways.
● No methods of dissemination
and marketing are used (for
example, web-based
resources, newsletters,
meetings, local media, etc.).
● There is no evidence that a
regular and consistent
technology plan results from
intra-system collaboration
between the technology
department and system-level
staff development,
curriculum, media, Title I,
special education, and ESOL
personnel.
● The plan has no description
of its commitment to
accessibility, the design of
apps, devices, materials, and
environments that support
and enable access to content
and educational activities for
all learners.
● The plan has no description
of how it enables students
with disabilities to use
content and participate in
activities, accommodates the
individual learning needs of
students, such as English

learners, students in rural
communities, or from
economically disadvantaged
homes.
● The plan fully describes how
it will use technology to
support accessibility through
embedded assistance, for
example, text-to-speech,
audio and digital text
formats of instructional
materials, programs that
differentiate instruction,
adaptive testing, built-in
accommodations, and
assistive technology.
Ongoing ● Each strategy has
benchmarks that serve as
Evaluation tangible, measurable
indicators of successful
progression of the strategy
implemented within the
three-year period. These are
at least annual benchmarks.
If the benchmarks are not
being met according to the
planned schedule, the school
or system may need to
create a new strategy.
→ Example. Conduct
quarterly technology
integration workshops in
each school for teachers.
Benchmarks – 50%
participation in FY12, 75%
participation in FY13, 90%
participation in FY14.
→Example. Purchase and
install tablets in all schools.
Benchmarks – FY12, one 20-
bay cart for each of the three
elementary schools. FY13,
one 20-bay cart for the
middle and high schools.
FY14, one additional 20-bay
cart for each of the five
schools.
● Each goal strategy has at
least one evaluation method,
but in many cases, may
include several. The plan
students, such as English
language learners, students
in rural communities, or
from economically
disadvantaged homes.
● The plan has some
description of how it will
use technology to support
accessibility through
embedded assistance, for
example, text-to-speech,
audio and digital text
formats of instructional
materials, programs that
differentiate instruction,
adaptive testing, built-in
accommodations, and
assistive technology.
● Some of the strategies have
benchmarks that serve as
tangible, measurable
indicators of successful
progression of the strategy
implemented within the
three-year period.
Benchmarks may not be
annual. If the benchmarks
are not being met according
to the planned schedule, the
school or system may need
to create a new strategy.
● Some goal strategies do not
have at least one evaluation
method. The plan may not
include an evaluation
8
language learners, students
in rural communities, or from
economically disadvantaged
homes.
● The plan has no description
of how it will use technology
to support accessibility
through embedded
assistance, for example, text-
to-speech, audio and digital
text formats of instructional
materials, programs that
differentiate instruction,
adaptive testing, built-in
accommodations, and
assistive technology.
● None of the strategies have
benchmarks that serve as
tangible, measurable
indicators of successful
progression of the strategy
implemented within the
three-year period.
Benchmarks may not be
annual. If the benchmarks are
not being met according to
the planned schedule, the
school or system may need to
create a new strategy.
● None of the goal strategies
have at least one evaluation
method. The plan may not
include an evaluation process

includes an evaluation
process that enables the
school to monitor progress
toward the specified goals
and make mid-course
corrections in response to
new developments and
opportunities as they arise.
Each strategy includes at
least annual dates.
● The evaluation plan has
specific methods to
determine how the
technology program success
affects:
1. Student
achievement,
2. Student technology
literacy, and
3. Quality of
students’ learning
experiences.
● Data collection strategies to
monitor progress for each
technology
goal/strategy/benchmark are
provided.
● Responsibility for collecting
and analyzing data on each
technology
goals/strategy/benchmark is
assigned and documented.
(Titles are sufficient.).
Appendices ● Copies of the system’s
Acceptable Use Policy and
CIPA policy are provided.
● Copies of all other policies
that govern action (i.e.,
purchasing policies, contract
awards and management,
redeployment of old
equipment, minimum
specifications for classroom
equipment, etc.) are
provided.
process that enables the
school to monitor progress
toward the specified goals
and make mid-course
corrections in response to
new developments and
opportunities as they arise.
Some strategies include at
least annual dates.
● The evaluation plan lacks
specific methods in one of
the following areas to
determine how the
technology program success
affects:
1. Student
achievement,
2. Student
technology
literacy, and
3. Quality of
students’ learning
experiences.
● Data collection strategies to
monitor progress for each
technology
goal/strategy/benchmark
are provided, but lack detail
or clarity.
● Responsibility for collecting
and analyzing data on each
technology
goals/strategy/benchmark
are not clearly assigned
and/or documented. (Titles
are sufficient.).
● One of the following is not
provided: Copies of the
system’s Acceptable Use
Policy and CIPA policy are
provided.
● Copies of some other
policies that govern action
(i.e., purchasing policies,
contract awards and
management, redeployment
of old equipment, minimum
specifications for classroom
equipment, etc.) are
provided.
9
that enables the school to
monitor progress toward the
specified goals and make
mid-course corrections in
response to new
developments and
opportunities as they arise.
No strategies include at least
annual dates.
● The evaluation plan lacks
specific methods in two or
more one of the following
areas to determine how the
technology program success
affects:
4. Student
achievement,
5. Student
technology
literacy, and
6. Quality of students’
learning
experiences.
● No data collection strategies
to monitor progress for each
technology
goal/strategy/benchmark are
provided.
● Responsibility for collecting
and analyzing data on each
technology
goals/strategy/benchmark
are not assigned and/or
documented. (Titles are
sufficient.).
● No Copies of the system’s
Acceptable Use Policy and
CIPA policy are provided.
● No copies of any other
policies that govern action
(i.e., purchasing policies,
contract awards and
management, redeployment
of old equipment, minimum
specifications for classroom
equipment, etc.) are
provided.

Rubric adapted from the US Dept. of Education’s 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update and the GADOE Technology
Plan Rubric, 2013
Completed Rubric Evaluation of Gwinnett County School District Technology Plan
Well-defined
Vision for ● The plan includes an overall
mission statement that
Technology communicates all of the
Use following:
5. the primary
purpose,
6. the primary duties,
7. the core beliefs
and values, and
8. the accessibility of
system technology.
● The plan includes clear vision
statements (usually 10-15
bulleted sentences) that
communicate specific areas
of impact and/or
improvement.
● The plan includes a clear
description of how
technology will be used to
deliver rigorous academic
courses (e.g., Georgia Virtual
School, video conferencing,
video streaming, and web
based instruction).
Goals, ● Based on the vision, data
collection, and the gap
Strategies, analysis, clear and concrete
and goals are established in all of
Benchmarks the following categories:
5. Instructional uses
of technology,
6. Administrative
uses of technology,
7. Parent/community
uses of technology,
and
8. System readiness
(staff technical
competencies/attit
udes).
Needs clarification
● The plan includes an overall
mission statement that
communicates at least two
of the following:
5. the primary
purpose,
6. the primary
duties,
7. the core beliefs
and values, and
8. the accessibility
of system
technology.
● The plan needs more
specific vision statements
(usually 10-15 bulleted
sentences) that
communicate specific areas
of impact and/or
improvement.
● The plan needs a clearer
description of how
technology will be used to
deliver rigorous academic
courses (e.g., Georgia
Virtual School, video
conferencing, video
streaming, and web based
instruction).
● Based on the vision, data
collection, and the gap
analysis, goals are
established at least two of
the following categories:
5. Instructional uses
of technology,
6. Administrative
uses of
technology,
7. Parent/communit
y uses of
technology, and
8. System readiness
(staff technical
competencies/a
10
Beginning
● The plan does not include an
overall mission statement, or
its mission statement
communicates one or fewer of
the following:
5. the primary
purpose,
6. the primary duties,
7. the core beliefs and
values, and
8. the accessibility of
system technology.
● The plan does not include
specific vision statements
(usually 10-15 bulleted
sentences) that communicate
specific areas of impact and/or
improvement.
● The plan does not describe
how technology will be used
to deliver rigorous academic
courses (e.g., Georgia Virtual
School, video conferencing,
video streaming, and web
based instruction).
● Based on the vision, data
collection, and the gap
analysis, goals are established
at one or fewer of the
following categories:
5. Instructional uses of
technology,
6. Administrative uses
of technology,
7. Parent/community
uses of technology,
and
8. System readiness
(staff technical
competencies/attitu
des).

● Each goal is accompanied by
a process/task for
meetingvarious components
of the goal(s).
● Each goal is accompanied by
benchmarks that serve as
tangible indicators of
successful progress toward
goal completion.
Current ● Access toTechnology/Data
Sources: Identified data
Reality sources (such as annual
(assessment technology inventory) are
of collected and cited to
telecommunic determine system members’
current level of access to
ation services, computer hardware,
hardware, instructional software, and
software, and the Internet.
other services
● Technology Use: Collected
needed) data is used to determine
the following:
4. Instructional uses
of technology to
include digital and
online resources
5. Administrative
uses of technology
to include digital
and online
resources
6. Parent/community
uses of technology
● Gap Analysis: Collected data
is fully analyzed to determine
the gap between what levels
of technology access is
needed to achieve the vision
and what is currently
available.
Analysis includes trends
across subgroups in the
school system.
ttitudes).
● Some goals are
accompanied by a
process/task for meeting
various components of the
goal(s).
● Some goals are
accompanied by
benchmarks that serve as
tangible indicators of
successful progress toward
goal completion
● Access toTechnology/Data
Sources: Identified data
sources (such as annual
technology inventory) are
partially collected and cited
to determine system
members’ current level of
access to computer
hardware, instructional
software, and the Internet.
● Technology Use: Collected
data is used to determine
at least two the following:
4. Instructional uses
of technology to
include digital
and online
resources
5. Administrative
uses of
technology to
include digital
and online
resources
6. Parent/communit
y uses of
technology
● Gap Analysis: Collected
data is partially analyzed to
determine the gap
between what levels of
technology access is
needed to achieve the
vision and what is currently
available.
Analysis may not include
trends across subgroups in
the school system.
11
● No goals are accompanied by
a process/task for meeting
various components of the
goal(s).
● No goals are accompanied by
benchmarks that serve as
tangible indicators of
successful progress toward
goal completion
● Access toTechnology/Data
Sources: Identified data
sources (such as annual
technology inventory) are not
collected and cited to
determine system members’
current level of access to
computer hardware,
instructional software, and the
Internet.
● Technology Use: Collected
data is used to determine one
or fewer of the following:
4. Instructional uses of
technology to
include digital and
online resources
5. Administrative uses
of technology to
include digital and
online resources
6. Parent/community
uses of technology
● Gap Analysis: Collected data is
not analyzed to determine the
gap between what levels of
technology access is needed
to achieve the vision and what
is currently available.

Professional ● Professional Development
programs are clearly
Development outlined.
● Funding sources of all
professional development
are provided.
● Local professional
development programs are
consistent with nationally
established criteria for
quality professional
development, with all of the
following characteristics
defined: incentives, self-
directed learning through
online and blended learning
opportunities, and authentic
connections to actual work.
● Professional development
programs promote research-
supported instructional
practices that actively
engage students in their own
learning.
● Professional development
programs help teachers
target their instructional
practices toward student
achievement of GSE
standards.
Budget ● The plan provides a sufficient
budget to acquire and
support all of the following
elements of the plan: the
hardware, software,
professional development,
and other services that will
be needed to implement the
strategy. It includes at least
annual dates.
● The system shows all funding
sources in percentages to
pay for implementing the
strategy.
→Example:
FY12–$80,000 Local Funds,
$20,000–SPLOST;
● Professional Development
programs are somewhat
outlined.
● Funding sources of some
professional development
are provided.
● Local professional
development programs
may not be entirely
consistent with nationally
established criteria for
quality professional
development, but include
some of the following
characteristics: incentives,
self-directed learning
through online and
blended learning
opportunities, and
authentic connections to
actual work.
● Professional development
programs partly promote
research-supported
instructional practices that
actively engage students in
their own learning.
● Professional development
programs partially help
teachers target their
instructional practices
toward student
achievement of GSE
standards.
● The plan provides a
sufficient budget to acquire
some of the elements of
the plan: the hardware,
software, professional
development, and other
services that will be needed
to implement the strategy.
It may not include at least
annual dates.
● The system may not show
all funding sources in
percentages to pay for
implementing the strategy.
12
● Professional Development
programs are not sufficiently
outlined.
● Funding sources of
professional development are
not provided.
● Local professional
development programs are
not consistent with nationally
established criteria for quality
professional development,
and lack all or nearly all of the
following characteristics:
incentives, self-directed
learning through online and
blended learning
opportunities, and authentic
connections to actual work.
● Professional development
programs partly promote
research-supported
instructional practices that
actively engage students in
their own learning.
● Professional development
programs partially help
teachers target their
instructional practices toward
student achievement of GSE
standards.
● The plan’s budget is
insufficient to acquire the
elements of the plan: the
hardware, software,
professional development,
and other services that will be
needed to implement the
strategy. It may not include at
least annual dates.
● The system does not show any
funding sources in
percentages to pay for
implementing the strategy.

FY13 estimated $110,000
with 80% Local Funds, 20%
SPLOST funds; and
FY14 $130,000 projected,
with 75% Local Funds, 25%
SPLOST funds, contingent
SPLOST renewal in FY12.
● The budget is addressed for
each strategy. If a strategy
does not require any
funding, it is indicated. For
→Example:
Monthly parent technology
nights – no funding needed
because of staff volunteers
for FY12, no funding cost
projected for FY13 and FY14,
contingent upon continued
volunteer support.
Communica- ● Strategies for all of the
following are provided:
tion and sharing progress,
Marketing disseminating evaluation
results, encouraging broad
stakeholder involvement,
and marketing the role
technology can play in
helping students achieve the
Georgia Standards of
Excellence (GSE) in
innovative ways.
● Multiple methods of
dissemination and marketing
are used (for example, web-
based resources,
newsletters, meetings, local
media, etc.).
● There is clear evidence that a
regular and consistent
technology plan results from
intra-system collaboration
between the technology
department and system-level
staff development,
curriculum, media, Title I,
special education, and ESOL
personnel.
Accessibility ● The plan fully describes its
commitment to accessibility,
of technology the design of apps, devices,
resources
● The budget is addressed for
some strategies. If a
strategy does not require
any funding, it may not be
indicated.
● Some strategies for the
following are provided:
sharing progress,
disseminating evaluation
results, encouraging broad
stakeholder involvement,
and marketing the role
technology can play in
helping students achieve
the Georgia Standards of
Excellence (GSE) in
innovative ways.
● At least one method of
dissemination and
marketing is used (for
example, web-based
resources, newsletters,
meetings, local media,
etc.).
● There is some evidence
that a regular and
consistent technology plan
results from intra-system
collaboration between the
technology department
and system-level staff
development, curriculum,
media, Title I, special
education, and ESOL
personnel.
● The plan has some
description of its
commitment to
13
● There is no budget, or the
budget is not addressed for
most strategies. If a strategy
does not require any funding,
it may not be indicated.
● No strategies for the following
are provided: sharing
progress, disseminating
evaluation results,
encouraging broad
stakeholder involvement, and
marketing the role technology
can play in helping students
achieve the Georgia Standards
of Excellence (GSE) in
innovative ways.
● No methods of dissemination
and marketing are used (for
example, web-based
resources, newsletters,
meetings, local media, etc.).
● There is no evidence that a
regular and consistent
technology plan results from
intra-system collaboration
between the technology
department and system-level
staff development, curriculum,
media, Title I, special
education, and ESOL
personnel.
● The plan has no description of
its commitment to
accessibility, the design of

(Americans materials, and environments
that support and enable
with access to content and
Disabilities educational activities for all
Act) learners.
● The plan fully describes how
it enables students with
disabilities to use content
and participate in activities,
accommodates the individual
learning needs of students,
such as English language
learners, students in rural
communities, or from
economically disadvantaged
homes.
● The plan fully describes how
it will use technology to
support accessibility through
embedded assistance, for
example, text-to-speech,
audio and digital text
formats of instructional
materials, programs that
differentiate instruction,
adaptive testing, built-in
accommodations, and
assistive technology.
Ongoing ● Each strategy has
benchmarks that serve as
Evaluation tangible, measurable
indicators of successful
progression of the strategy
implemented within the
three-year period. These are
at least annual benchmarks.
If the benchmarks are not
being met according to the
planned schedule, the school
or system may need to
create a new strategy.
→ Example. Conduct
quarterly technology
integration workshops in
each school for teachers.
Benchmarks – 50%
participation in FY12, 75%
participation in FY13, 90%
participation in FY14.
→Example. Purchase and
accessibility, the design of
apps, devices, materials,
and environments that
support and enable access
to content and educational
activities for all learners.
● The plan has some
description of how it
enables students with
disabilities to use content
and participate in activities,
accommodates the
individual learning needs of
students, such as English
language learners, students
in rural communities, or
from economically
disadvantaged homes.
● The plan has some
description of how it will
use technology to support
accessibility through
embedded assistance, for
example, text-to-speech,
audio and digital text
formats of instructional
materials, programs that
differentiate instruction,
adaptive testing, built-in
accommodations, and
assistive technology.
● Some of the strategies
have benchmarks that
serve as tangible,
measurable indicators of
successful progression of
the strategy implemented
within the three-year
period. Benchmarks may
not be annual. If the
benchmarks are not being
met according to the
planned schedule, the
school or system may need
to create a new strategy.
14
apps, devices, materials, and
environments that support
and enable access to content
and educational activities for
all learners.
● The plan has no description of
how it enables students with
disabilities to use content and
participate in activities,
accommodates the individual
learning needs of students,
such as English language
learners, students in rural
communities, or from
economically disadvantaged
homes.
● The plan has no description of
how it will use technology to
support accessibility through
embedded assistance, for
example, text-to-speech,
audio and digital text formats
of instructional materials,
programs that differentiate
instruction, adaptive testing,
built-in accommodations, and
assistive technology.
● None of the strategies have
benchmarks that serve as
tangible, measurable
indicators of successful
progression of the strategy
implemented within the three-
year period. Benchmarks may
not be annual. If the
benchmarks are not being met
according to the planned
schedule, the school or system
may need to create a new
strategy.

install tablets in all schools.
Benchmarks – FY12, one 20-
bay cart for each of the three
elementary schools. FY13,
one 20-bay cart for the
middle and high schools.
FY14, one additional 20-bay
cart for each of the five
schools.
● Each goal strategy has at
least one evaluation method,
but in many cases, may
include several. The plan
includes an evaluation
process that enables the
school to monitor progress
toward the specified goals
and make mid-course
corrections in response to
new developments and
opportunities as they arise.
Each strategy includes at
least annual dates.
● The evaluation plan has
specific methods to
determine how the
technology program success
affects:
1. Student
achievement,
2. Student technology
literacy, and
3. Quality of
students’ learning
experiences.
● Data collection strategies to
monitor progress for each
technology
goal/strategy/benchmark are
provided.
● Responsibility for collecting
and analyzing data on each
technology
goals/strategy/benchmark is
assigned and documented.
(Titles are sufficient.).
● Some goal strategies do
not have at least one
evaluation method. The
plan may not include an
evaluation process that
enables the school to
monitor progress toward
the specified goals and
make mid-course
corrections in response to
new developments and
opportunities as they arise.
Some strategies include at
least annual dates.
● The evaluation plan lacks
specific methods in one of
the following areas to
determine how the
technology program
success affects:
1. Student
achievement,
2. Student
technology
literacy, and
3. Quality of
students’
learning
experiences.
● Data collection strategies
to monitor progress for
each technology
goal/strategy/benchmark
are provided, but lack
detail or clarity.
● Responsibility for collecting
and analyzing data on each
technology
goals/strategy/benchmark
are not clearly assigned
and/or documented. (Titles
are sufficient.).
15
● None of the goal strategies
have at least one evaluation
method. The plan may not
include an evaluation process
that enables the school to
monitor progress toward the
specified goals and make mid-
course corrections in response
to new developments and
opportunities as they arise. No
strategies include at least
annual dates.
● The evaluation plan lacks
specific methods in two or
more one of the following
areas to determine how the
technology program success
affects:
4. Student
achievement,
5. Student
technology literacy,
and
6. Quality of students’
learning
experiences.
● No data collection strategies
to monitor progress for each
technology
goal/strategy/benchmark are
provided.
● Responsibility for collecting
and analyzing data on each
technology
goals/strategy/benchmark are
not assigned and/or
documented. (Titles are
sufficient.).
 16

Appendices ● Copies of the system’s
Acceptable Use Policy and
CIPA policy are provided.
● One of the following is not
provided: Copies of the
system’s Acceptable Use
Policy and CIPA policy are
provided.
● No Copies of the system’s
Acceptable Use Policy and
CIPA policy are provided.

● Copies of all other policies
that govern action (i.e.,
purchasing policies, contract
awards and management,
redeployment of old
equipment, minimum
specifications for classroom
equipment, etc.) are
provided.
Rubric adapted from the US Dept. of Education’s 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update and the GADOE Technology
Plan Rubric, 2013
● Copies of some other
policies that govern action
(i.e., purchasing policies,
contract awards and
management,
redeployment of old
equipment, minimum
specifications for classroom
equipment, etc.) are
provided.
● No copies of any other policies
that govern action (i.e.,
purchasing policies, contract
awards and management,
redeployment of old
equipment, minimum
specifications for classroom
equipment, etc.) are provided.

Recommendations for Gwinnett County School District Technology Plan

http://gwinnett.k12.ga.us/Techplan06/01a.html

Based upon our research of Gwinnett County Public Schools (GCPS) Technology Plan,
highlighted in yellow on the rubric the scoring of each category.

The first recommendation is that a current technology plan should be available to the public, the
copyright and specification of goal achievement is from 2006. Technology has vastly changed in
13 years and many new schools are not included in this technology plan. Technology Integration
was rapidly implemented in early 2000, so it lends the reader to question how have standards
been achieved, what are the indicators for success or what technology deficiencies (Tier 1 -3
schools) are still found within the system. The technology plan and ultimate goal was for all
GCPS schools to reach a Tier 5 in regard to technology. What is the status of this goal? There
was no previous technology plan to review and compare prior to the 2006 report.

Vision for Technology was well-defined. Indicators were the 7 major technology vision points.
This was part of GCPS overall vision for Curriculum and Instruction for students. Primary duties
were well defined, 3 staff members at each school - Local School Technology Coordinator and
Media Specialist (both certified educators - teacher to students/staff) and Technology Support
Technician (maintenance of technology equipment). Core beliefs and value of fulfilling 21st
 17

century learning using technology to meet academic knowledge skills and Georgia Professional
Standards were addressed. There is a robust infrastructure in place to meet the increasing size
and complexity of digital resources and increasing the network capabilities.

The goals, strategies and benchmarks were based upon continuous demand and change for
information through technology systems. There is a process in place to support effective
technology performance to reach desired goals. Performance results were based upon collected
RBES data in 2005. Data is present but outdated in nature. QCC Technology integration plan
mapped out standards K-12. This plan is broken into manageable sections and grade level
expectations/goals. This outline again is based upon results in 2004 and therefore outdated.
Goals are outlined by technology process and tasks using local school LSPI data. Examples were
provided from 3 major classifications of schools within the county (elementary, middle and
high). These examples gave the reviewer tangible indicators of success towards goal completion
which were for the most part achieved with further recommendations.

Current reality needs clarification because the data is out of date. The reality assessment is well
over 10 years old, where is GCPS now? This leads to the reader to question how other schools
compare to others throughout the district. Do specialty schools have an increase in technology
availability versus others? Prior to 2006, beginning in 2003, GCPS focus had been on technology
rollout. The next focus expanded to HS teacher/student access and improved computer labs.
Ultimate goal was tier 5 access to technology for all GCPS schools, provided there is SPLOST
money available. This was data and information included in the gap analysis. In the analysis
there is an indication that the GCPS board felt inclined to upgrade entire schools vs classrooms
so that accessibility was similar throughout a building. Technology rollouts were based upon
school age of equipment and level. Furthermore, initial needs to be addressed were providing
equipment upgrades for all new schools or leveled out equipment at ES/MS/HS held higher
priority. From perception surveys of students the technology access is not a challenge, but the
quality of instructional technology experience was. Again, this leads the reviewer to question
where is GCPS now? Has the necessary steps been taken into account and addressed? What is
the perception survey of current students now, 14 years later?

Professional Development programs are clearly outlined through the management divisions
Department of Media and Information Systems that coordinate training for LSTC and Media
Specialists to re-deliver at local schools such as programs like Lotus notes, Smartboard. There
were opportunities provided for staff development during the school year and summer staff
development for teachers to integrate technology instruction (Tech Competencies, LSPI, Train
the Trainer Program). LSTC gives specific technology staff development to assist with
technology integration of curriculum in classrooms throughout the 180 work calendar. Local
school staff development is based on the needs of the staff and students. Attention is geared to
support teacher learning to provide the highest instruction using technology that will meet the
AKS and curriculum based learning targets
 18

The plan’s Budget section is at the Beginning level. In Section 9. Action Plan, f. Budget, the plan
has a column labelled “Funding” for each element of the system’s Seven Strategic Goals. But,
for most of these boxes, the lines are left blank, although some do mention a simple funding
source, including SPLOST, M&O, General Fund, E-Rate, and Capital Projects. In addition, the
plan does not include any dollar amounts or percentages from funding sources for any of these
goal elements. There is, however, a hyperlink to a separate document called "Universal Service
Fund Year 8 FORM 471 REBATE TOTALS," which lists some requested dollar amounts and e
rate discounted amounts, but only for some telephone and internet connections. The plan’s
narrative in the budget section states: “All strategies in the Organizational Management Plan are
identified with funding types, if possible. Funds are downloaded to schools to supplement
instructional technology resources. The use of funds is audited annually at each school by a team
of central office auditors, and financial information is evaluated annually with the principal as
part of the Results-Based Evaluation System. For the district, funding is provided from multiple
sources and through multiple objectives. Gwinnett County Public Schools uses Special-Purpose
Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) revenues to supplement district-wide technology and
facilities upgrades and additions, and the district also uses eRate funds to offset
telecommunications costs. To see a summary of the eRate funding for the most recent
applications, click here.” Despite these statements in the narrative, however, we can see that
(with the exception of the limited information in the separate eRate document), the plan fails to
provide the information it outlines in the narrative. It needs to be vastly more detailed, with
dollar amounts and percentages, or an explanation of why no funding is needed, in each of the
spaces in the document that is tied to an element of the strategic goals.

The Communication and Marketing section included accountability reports that included
information about status and plans through 2008. GCPS provides an IMD annual report that
includes communicating and marketing information through processes such as news, libraries,
GCPS-TV, parent email and communication, and GCPS automated calls. Area and Local board
meetings provide quality community opportunities to communicate and market GCPS.
Technology Fairs, Technology Plans, GCPS Website also are excellent formats of information
for its stakeholders. The operational management plan has been outdated since 2007. Community
perception of technology is gauged through perception surveys, local school councils, business
partners and continuing the LSTC/TST as the local area for parents, staff and community
technology achievement.

Accessibility of Technology (ADA) needs some clarification and elaboration.

In Gwinnett’s plan, Section 2 (Planning Process), a. Involvement and responsibility for
Technology Planning, notes that special education teachers are involved in the instructional
planning process, with their input resulting in several implementations, including a laptop for
each Special Ed. teacher, along with IEP.online, a tool to help with IEPs. This section of the
document also states that there is a group that handles Special Ed. software purchases to ensure
 19

instructional titles are appropriate for Special Ed. students. As far as adaptive technology, there
is only general information, as the document notes the existence of Special Ed. “centers” that are
alternative education facilities that “serve medically fragile students, so a number of adaptive
technology tools and resources are provided to these students.” Due to increasing focus on
adaptability and accessibility of resources for students in school systems, and the 2018 update of
Section 508 standards (of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) that establishes new mandates for
information and communication technology accessibility, content, and functionality, the
Gwinnett school system needs to write in more detailed explanations of their adaptive
technology tools and resources. As stated in the rubric, the plan should include a fully detailed
description of implementations such as text-to-speech, audio and digital formats, differentiated
testing, and other areas covered by ADA and particularly the new update that specifies new
mandates on website accessibility. There is a brief elaboration in Section 3 (Student Needs) in
the case study section which mentions a teacher’s classroom in Lilburn where the teacher says
that, “In a school with such a high ESOL population, a fifth-grade teacher may have students
reading anywhere between kindergarten and eighth grade levels. One teacher can hardly meet
that many needs. SuccessMaker, with its real-time data, is able to adjust to where each student is
functioning today. Accelerated Reader is a reading emphasis software that is especially good at
helping second language students acquire vocabulary.” Again, though, the plan needs to
document examples like this for the system as a whole, and should probably include all of it in a
separate section devoted to accessibility of technology. The rubric also specifies that districts
fully describe how they accommodate the individual learning needs of students, such as English
language learners, students in rural communities, or from economically disadvantaged homes.
This section of Gwinnett’s document only briefly addresses ELL inclusion in the technology
plan, mentioning that the ESOL Department (outdated term, should now be using “ELL”) has
implemented “several ESOL-focused applications within the GCPS rollout of NCS Learn's
SuccessMaker software program to help increase academic performance at every elementary
school.” Just as with the ADA component, Gwinnett needs to add information to elaborate more
on how it is providing resources to enhance the accessibility of its technology programs to
English Language Learners (ELLs).

For the Ongoing Evaluation section of the rubric, Gwinnett’s plan is lacking. None of the goal
strategies have at least one evaluation method, and the plan does not include an evaluation
process that enables the school to monitor progress toward the specified goals and make mid-
course corrections in response to new developments and opportunities as they arise. There are
only general start dates listed, not yearly deadlines for meeting targets. The plan also does not
give specific methods of evaluating progress, and includes no benchmarks at all to measure
success of the plan’s initiatives. It should add methods to evaluate student achievement, student
technology literacy, and the quality of students’ learning experiences. The plan does give
responsibility for each strategy, assigning “owner codes” to each element of the strategies
(“OWNER CODES: OA=OA, HR=HR, DoPL=Director of Professional Learning,
EDoC&I=Executive Director of Curriculum & Instruction, DoAR&SA=Director of Assessment,
 20

Research, & School Accountability, EDoSE&PS=Executive Director of Special Education &

Psychological Services, EDoSAA&A=Executive Director of Student Accountability,
Assessment, & Advisement). However, it isn’t at all clear what these “owners” are responsible
for doing, since there are no explanations of measures for collecting or analyzing data, and there
are no benchmarks to measure success.

In the appendices the reviewer could easily locate the copies of the GCPS acceptable use policy
and CIPA policy. Other noted items were the information regarding IBM as a strategic partner
for Equipment and Technology Business. It mentioned a surplusing strategy they use to remove
equipment at the end of its lifecycle. Division of Information Management, Testing Lab, School
Accountability Reports (published annually for each school), but many schools have been added
to the system since 2006. This accountability report included how TST responded to teacher
needs and how vendors supply technology to meet GCPS academic knowledge standards.