Technology Plan Comparisons Presentation Part 2

A good example of a technology plan’s Action

Plan


Plan• Featured Plan: Los Angeles Unified School District Technology Plan (1999-2003)

• Begins with – Brief synopsis of what to expect in plan – District gathering and analyzing data from “implementation activities” to determine the annual work & to anticipate the resources and budgetary support needed for each year

• Data gathering & analysis are mentioned in several portions of plan

• Featured Plan: Los Angeles Unified School District Technology Plan (1999-2003)

• Begins with – Brief synopsis of what to expect in plan – District gathering and analyzing data from “implementation activities” to determine the annual work & to anticipate the resources and budgetary support needed for each year

• Data gathering & analysis are mentioned in several portions of plan

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.


Plan (cont’d)


Plan (cont’d)• Implements plan through 4 phases

– Timeline given of implementation of various strategies

• Addressing Access to Technology Resources– Goal: Human Resource Management & Development

– Objectives: Technology Support Staffing, Equity of Technology Resources, & Learning Environment

• Implements plan through 4 phases– Timeline given of implementation of various strategies

• Addressing Access to Technology Resources– Goal: Human Resource Management & Development

– Objectives: Technology Support Staffing, Equity of Technology Resources, & Learning Environment



Plan (cont’d)


Plan (cont’d)• Addressing Technology Literacy

– Goal: Curriculum & Learning Standards– Objectives: Curriculum & Technology Integration & Student Technology Standards

• Addressing Professional Development– Goal: Human Resource Management & Development

– Objective: Staff Technology Competencies

• Addressing Technology Literacy– Goal: Curriculum & Learning Standards– Objectives: Curriculum & Technology Integration & Student Technology Standards

• Addressing Professional Development– Goal: Human Resource Management & Development

– Objective: Staff Technology Competencies



Plan (cont’d)


Plan (cont’d)• Addressing Community Collaboration

– Goals:Human Resource Management & Development

– Objectives: Staff Technology Competencies, Organizational Development, Human Resource Management

– Goal: (Addressing) Implementation Issues– Objective: Community Learning

• Addressing Community Collaboration– Goals:Human Resource Management & Development

– Objectives: Staff Technology Competencies, Organizational Development, Human Resource Management

– Goal: (Addressing) Implementation Issues– Objective: Community Learning


A bad example of a technology plan’s Action

Plan


Plan• Featured Plan: Many High School (1997-1999)– Basic Shortcomings

• Concise to the point of seeming rushed and not well thought out

• No indication of update or revision in following years

• Goals as single phrase statements that are elusive and tough to measure– Ex: develop staff competency in technology

• Featured Plan: Many High School (1997-1999)– Basic Shortcomings

• Concise to the point of seeming rushed and not well thought out

• No indication of update or revision in following years

• Goals as single phrase statements that are elusive and tough to measure– Ex: develop staff competency in technology



Plan(cont’d)


Plan(cont’d)• Lack of Evaluative methods

– For evaluation of effectiveness on teacher training and technology use the evaluation is listed as “teacher sign in sheets for training sessions”

– For evaluation of effective technology implementation in lessons the evaluator is “Copy of teacher lesson plans”

– No goal is supported or evaluated by data evaluated before or after a set period of time.

– All strategies are listed as “on-going”. Indicating that someone only wanted to write this plan once.

• Lack of Evaluative methods– For evaluation of effectiveness on teacher training and technology use the evaluation is listed as “teacher sign in sheets for training sessions”

– For evaluation of effective technology implementation in lessons the evaluator is “Copy of teacher lesson plans”

– No goal is supported or evaluated by data evaluated before or after a set period of time.

– All strategies are listed as “on-going”. Indicating that someone only wanted to write this plan once.


A good example of a technology plan’s

Budgeting


Budgeting• Featured plan: Lakeshore Public Schools Technology Plan (2007-2010)

• Clearly outlines cost of each action element during each school year from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010

• Lists each fund from which the money is coming

• States that district will use federal, state, & local grants to assist in providing professional development, software, or technology equipment

• Featured plan: Lakeshore Public Schools Technology Plan (2007-2010)

• Clearly outlines cost of each action element during each school year from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010

• Lists each fund from which the money is coming

• States that district will use federal, state, & local grants to assist in providing professional development, software, or technology equipment

A bad example of a technology plan’s

Budgeting


Budgeting• Featured Plan: Poway High School (2005-2008)

– Budget does not provide for supporting needed infrastructure to support active technology usage. Details:• 6 Network drops per class• On-site hardware support, but not software/application support

• Handcuffed by mandatory purchasing of equipment every 4 years, as opposed to a lease that replaces obsolete technology as a provision.

• Featured Plan: Poway High School (2005-2008)– Budget does not provide for supporting needed infrastructure to support active technology usage. Details:• 6 Network drops per class• On-site hardware support, but not software/application support

• Handcuffed by mandatory purchasing of equipment every 4 years, as opposed to a lease that replaces obsolete technology as a provision.



Evaluation


Evaluation• Featured Plan: Plymouth Public Schools

Technology Plan (2007-2011)• Describes how district will evaluate

technology plan periodically throughout school year

• (If necessary) technology plan will be adjusted after periodic evaluations

• Considers feedback from stakeholder & advisory board meetings as evaluations

• Summative evaluation at end of each year– Will “redefine & redirect” plan for more effectiveness

• Featured Plan: Plymouth Public Schools Technology Plan (2007-2011)

• Describes how district will evaluate technology plan periodically throughout school year

• (If necessary) technology plan will be adjusted after periodic evaluations

• Considers feedback from stakeholder & advisory board meetings as evaluations

• Summative evaluation at end of each year– Will “redefine & redirect” plan for more effectiveness


Evaluation


Evaluation• Featured Plan: Greenwich Public Schools (2009-2012)– Although this technology plan was very impressive and had a continuous evaluation of alignment and effectiveness, it only required teachers to use technology 4 times a year. • This puts a serious limit on what can truly be “evaluated”

• Featured Plan: Greenwich Public Schools (2009-2012)– Although this technology plan was very impressive and had a continuous evaluation of alignment and effectiveness, it only required teachers to use technology 4 times a year. • This puts a serious limit on what can truly be “evaluated”



Policy


Policy• Featured Plan: Los Angeles Unified School District Technology Plan (2006-2009)

• Found in Appendix A• 1st page addresses CIPA within AUP for District Computer Systems

• Includes 2 attachments of AUP for students & parents and faculty & staff

• Featured Plan: Los Angeles Unified School District Technology Plan (2006-2009)

• Found in Appendix A• 1st page addresses CIPA within AUP for District Computer Systems

• Includes 2 attachments of AUP for students & parents and faculty & staff


Policy


Policy• Featured Plan: Many High School (1997-1999)

• The worst situation is the absence of a policy.– Many High School did not include a policy with their technology plan at all.

– Other factors include making it accessible. – While several school districts have well developed policies they tend to be written by school lawyers and are not easily understood by students and parents.

– A “layman’s” version should be provided adjusted to grade level comprehension and I did not see this with any of the plans reviewed.

• Featured Plan: Many High School (1997-1999)

• The worst situation is the absence of a policy.– Many High School did not include a policy with their technology plan at all.

– Other factors include making it accessible. – While several school districts have well developed policies they tend to be written by school lawyers and are not easily understood by students and parents.

– A “layman’s” version should be provided adjusted to grade level comprehension and I did not see this with any of the plans reviewed.


Works CitedWorks Cited• Burgess, R. et al. (2007). Lakeshore public schools technology plan

2007- 2010. Stevensville, MI: Lakeshore Public Schools.• Booker III, Norman (1997). Many high school technology plan. Many,

LA: Sabine Public Schools.• Driscoll, E. et al. (2007). Plymouth public schools technology plan

2007-2011. Plymouth, MA: Plymouth Public Schools.• Douberley, K. et al. (2007). Hill-Gustat middle school technology

plan 2007- 2010. Sebring, FL: HGMS.• Fisher, Scott (2005). Poway high school technology plan 2005-2008.

Poway, CA: Poway High School.• Gunnip, Jan &Kompar, Fran (2009). Greenwich public schools technology

plan 2009-2012. Greenwich, CN: Greenwich Public Schools.

• Hines, A. et al. (2006). North Iredell middle school technology plan 2005- 2009. Olin, NC: North Iredell Middle School.

• Oliver, J. et al. (2000). Los Angeles unified school district instructional technology plan. Los Angeles, CA: The Los Angeles Unified School District.

• Tokofsky, D. et al. (2006). Los Angeles unified school district education technology plan July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2009. Los Angeles, CA: The Los Angeles Unified School District.

• Burgess, R. et al. (2007). Lakeshore public schools technology plan 2007- 2010. Stevensville, MI: Lakeshore Public Schools.

• Booker III, Norman (1997). Many high school technology plan. Many, LA: Sabine Public Schools.

• Driscoll, E. et al. (2007). Plymouth public schools technology plan 2007-2011. Plymouth, MA: Plymouth Public Schools.

• Douberley, K. et al. (2007). Hill-Gustat middle school technology plan 2007- 2010. Sebring, FL: HGMS.

• Fisher, Scott (2005). Poway high school technology plan 2005-2008. Poway, CA: Poway High School.

• Gunnip, Jan &Kompar, Fran (2009). Greenwich public schools technology plan 2009-2012. Greenwich, CN: Greenwich Public

Schools.• Hines, A. et al. (2006). North Iredell middle school technology plan

2005- 2009. Olin, NC: North Iredell Middle School.• Oliver, J. et al. (2000). Los Angeles unified school district

instructional technology plan. Los Angeles, CA: The Los Angeles Unified School District.

• Tokofsky, D. et al. (2006). Los Angeles unified school district education technology plan July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2009. Los Angeles, CA: The Los Angeles Unified School District.

Education

Technology Plan Comparisons Presentation Part 2