TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PLAN 1

Technology Evaluation Plan of the Educational School District of South Carolina

and North Carolina

Mibert Rivera Vazquez

Learning Design and Technology

College of Education, University of South Carolina

EDET 746 J-60

Dr. Carmen Weaver

November 26, 2023

TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PLAN 2

Abstract

The South Carolina Department of Education's 2020-2024 statewide educational

technology plan outlines goals in three key areas - infrastructure enhancement,

teaching and learning advancements, and state-hosted services. Specific infrastructure

objectives include improving network security, broadband access, device renewal, and

school bus Wi-Fi. Teaching and learning goals focus on implementing remote learning

systems, a statewide LMS, more virtual courses, and promoting computer science.

State-hosted services aims include upgrading student information systems, establishing

tech support centers, expanding contracts and backup services, and facilitating district

consolidation. The plan stresses the importance of funding and project management,

recommending district leadership involvement and professional development for tech

integration. The North Carolina DPI's 2021-2023 Information Technology Strategic Plan

concentrates on enhancing Technology Services Operations and modernizing School

Business Systems. While acknowledging budget constraints and remote learning

challenges, the plan emphasizes expanding digital access despite funding uncertainty.

The two-program framework provides clear targets, recommending tracking progress

during execution.

Keywords: educational technology, infrastructure enhancement, teaching, learning,

state-hosted services, information technology, computer science, remote learning,

digital resources.
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PLAN 3

South Carolina and North Carolina Educational Technology Plans: A Comparison

The South Carolina 2020-2024 Educational Technology Plan and the North

Carolina 2021-2023 Department of Public Instruction Information Technology Plan both

provide strategic plans to guide the use of technology to support teaching, learning, and

administration in their respective states’ public education systems. This paper will

describe and evaluate each plan, compare, and contrast them, and discuss how they

lay out strategic plans for future technology use.

South Carolina Educational Technology Plan Description and Evaluation

The South Carolina plan is comprehensive in addressing

infrastructure/connectivity, teaching/learning, and shared services. Its vision is that by

2022 districts will have available technologies to support personalized, digital learning in

safe environments to develop graduates ready for college, careers, and citizenship

meeting the Profile of the South Carolina Graduate competencies (South Carolina

Department of Education [SCDE], 2020).

To evaluate the plan’s effectiveness, criteria include having clear goals and sound

recommendations to carry them out which align available resources to identified needs.

South Carolina sets three overarching goals regarding infrastructure, teaching/learning,

and shared services. Each section has multiple strategic initiatives with action steps for

the next five years. For example, a teaching and learning goal aims for students and

teachers to have more accessible tools for personalized “anytime, anywhere, any pace”

learning. Recommended actions encompass assisting districts with digital makeup days
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PLAN 4

and out-of-classroom instruction, implementing a learning management system (LMS)

and learning objects repository, expanding virtual courses, and coding opportunities,

and modifying career and technology (CTE) information technology (IT) offerings based

on workforce needs (SCDE, 2020). The goals and initiatives directly address the major

issues surveyed, so they should achieve effective change.

The budget allocates existing and new funding toward goal-supportive

expenditures. While substantial resources are required, monies are designated for one-

time transition costs (e.g., a new student information system [SIS]) and recurring

operational expenses (e.g., regional IT staff). There is a strong basis for coordinated

support spanning state, district, school, and external sources. However, the total five-

year projected budget exceeds $183 million. A potential weakness is that the plan may

be too ambitious if anticipated funding and partnership contributions fall short (SCDE,

2020).

North Carolina Educational Technology Plan Description and Evaluation

Whereas South Carolina crafted a unique state educational technology plan,

North Carolina integrated its 2021-2023 plan into the overall NC Department of Public

Instruction (DPI) agency IT strategic plan. The DPI plan encompasses not only IT goals

and initiatives for NC’s public schools but also the technology program for all other DPI

operations (North Carolina DPI, 2020).

The public school’s component directly concentrates on two broad areas: DPI

Technology Services and the School Business Systems Modernization (SBSM)

TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PLAN 5

program composed of three workstreams (local education agency modernization,

agency modernization, and data transparency). Descriptions specify multiple IT

initiatives aligning to each program/workstream. However, precise action steps with

timelines are less evident than in South Carolina’s document. Budgets and funding

sources are identified but not aggregated for total impact. Still, the rationale presented

for modernizing systems and providing shared infrastructure and services substantiates

the selected strategies (North Carolina DPI, 2020).

At first glance the organization makes the NC plan seem fragmented. However,

the bimodal model of having one program geared toward stability, efficiency, and

security while the SBSM transformation program pursues innovation and

responsiveness allows concerted effort on both urgent priorities and long-term visions.

Once the budget is clarified, if sufficient funds are provided this infrastructure gives

breadth, depth, and flexibility to uplift technology infrastructure and teaching and

learning statewide (North Carolina DPI, 2020).

Comparison and Contrast of the Plans

Both states intend their plans to be guide documents that are regularly assessed

and updated as technology and educational transformations continue. The plans share

common themes regarding technology as vital to maximizing learning and school

operations. Likewise, they recognize the challenges of aged infrastructure, strained IT

staffing, and the digital divide. Both identify that solutions require coordinated state

direction as well as regional and local customization. There are also similarities in

specific initiatives offered, for example expanding connectivity, digital content, and data
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PLAN 6

systems; strengthening security; using shared services for efficiency; consolidating

smaller districts’ functions; and refreshing devices (SCDE, 2020; North Carolina DPI,

2020).

Distinctions stem from variances in governmental structures and processes.

South Carolina’s plan was crafted by the state education department as a standalone

document expressly mandated and funded by the state legislature specifying required

elements. The state department is positioned as the driver working through districts to

orchestrate technological advances aligned to the graduate profile. North Carolina’s

agency IT plan encompasses all departmental technology needs, not just public

schools. Different legislative appropriations, policies, and chains of command likely

influenced how K-12 schools fit into the DPI technology programs design (SCDE, 2020;

North Carolina DPI, 2020).

Outward presentation varies substantially. South Carolina’s formatting with an

introduction, goals, recommendations, and appendixes is more visually unified.

Organization by topic promotes easily extracting issues, advised strategies, and sub-

action steps. North Carolina arranges the plan by the DPI bimodal model, dividing

content between the divisions. For audience comprehension, South Carolina cohesively

presents issues to address, and solutions proposed. Each North Carolina section

contains relevant facts and rationales, but one must synthesize across program

descriptions to fully construct prospected actions. Budget integration differences follow

this pattern with South Carolina listing all costs by plan section as reference points while

North Carolina’s figures are deeply embedded (SCDE, 2020; North Carolina DPI, 2020).
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PLAN 7

Strategic Plans for Future Technology Use

Both state plans provide strategic direction for using technology to transform

teaching and learning. South Carolina sets a clear, unilateral vision statement and

objectives for technology’s role in supporting the graduate profile. All advice offered

targets schools having the technologies, connectivity, digital content, data systems,

training, and support to change educational practices. Guidance covers how to attain

the means to progress and have continuity for managing dynamic information age

environments (SCDE, 2020).

While North Carolina has multiple programs covering aspects from infrastructure

to instruction, the comprehensive, coordinated design networks improvement efforts.

Modernization initiatives, shared platforms, and data integration will remove barriers so

model districts’ successes can scale under state guidance. Still, most recommendations

target functions instead of interlacing how technology upgrades combine to catalyze

new learning models. Accelerating deployment of enabling assets is underscored

compared to the experiences envisioned. Less emphasis on professional development

and instructional redesign risks underutilizing system capabilities (North Carolina DPI,

2020).

Conclusion

Though differently structured, both state plans set constructive courses to

upgrade technology capacities for anywhere, anytime education to prepare graduates.

Concentrated state leadership and facilitation combined with regional coordination and
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PLAN 8

district customization can traverse access, infrastructure, training, and data-driven

decision barriers. If resources meet needs, technology will propel South Carolina and

North Carolina schools into effectively harnessing digital transformations.

TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PLAN 9

References

Report to the North Carolina State Chief Information Officer. (2020).

https://www.dpi.nc.gov/documents/techservices/ncdpi-2021-23-it-strategic-plan-

final-version-v2-0/download

Building · 1429, R., & Street · Columbia, S. (2019). GOV Educational Technology Plan:

Empowering Education with Technology Pursuant to Proviso 1.70 of.

https://www.scstatehouse.gov/reports/DeptofEducation/SC%20Tech%20Plan
%202020-24_Final%20Version%20for%20Release.pdf

Keeping Students Connected and Learning. (n.d.). Office of Educational Technology.

https://tech.ed.gov/wireless-brief/

Stefanie Dion Jones. (2018, June 6). Preparing a School District for a 1:1 Technology
Initiative: Issue Brief. Uconn.edu; Neag School of Education | UConn.
https://education.uconn.edu/2018/06/06/preparing-a-school-district-for-a-
11-technology-initiative-issue-brief/