J.

Steven Hornyak Ashley McMath Lillie McPhee Technology Plan Evaluation FRIT 8132 Administration of Technology Resources Fall 2012

Introduction The Houston County School System is located in middle Georgia with operational headquarters in Perry, Georgia. Houston County Schools include 38 campuses, with seven high schools, eight middle schools, and 23 elementary schools. Houston County Schools has developed a three year technology plan that was implemented July 1, 2011 and runs thru June 30, 2014. The technology plan gives a thorough process detailing the accessibility, responsibilities, infrastructure, and coordination of technology in the system. The gap analysis details classroom hardware inventory of current technology and outlines specific needs of the district. The districts mission is to produce high-achieving students and the technology plan details ways in which technology will help achieve this mission. The central goal of the plan is to provide staff with the resources to evaluate data and to utilize these results to develop effective instructional programs and assessment strategies in order to improve student achievement in all content areas. The goals and benchmarks are included in the plan, detailing the instructional, administrative, and parent/community uses of technology.

Technology Plan Analysis Rubric The Technology Plan Analysis Rubric developed for this evaluation of Houston County Schools Technology Plan is grounded in Dr. Paul Allens Technology Plan Analysis Rubric. The rubric has been altered to better reflect the individual components of the Houston County Schools Technology Plan and to allow for a more concise evaluation.

Components

3 Included in the plan with a thorough description and ample details.

2 Included in the plan, but either does not give a thorough description or enough details.

1 Either is not included in the plan, or is included, but does not have any description or details.

Contributors & Stakeholder Identification

Membership list is provided and describes constituencies represented. Vision statement is not included or does not address learning outcomes; is difficult to understand. Mission statement is missing or does not address instructional outcomes. Provides incomplete and/or is difficult to understand. Stakeholder access to technology and data sources is discussed at length to provide a picture of current access levels. Initiatives relating to access are detailed including budget and timelines. Goals are broad, comprehensive and realistic in addressing teaching and learning needs.

Vision & Mission Statement

Access to Technology & Data Sources

Goals, Benchmarks, & Strategies

General Issues

Goals clearly answer the questions: Who? What? By when? By how much? According to which instrument? Clearly addresses issues of: staff development, technical support, technology standards; student access to computers; integrating new with old technologies; capacity of present facilities to accommodate new technologies; how technology resources and budget will be distributed among schools for equitable access. Results and recommendations are adequately justified although the basis of some conclusions not entirely clear. Provides general description of hardware, software and connectivity standards, and requirements. Although clear, may miss some information elements. Describes policies

Results & Recommendations

Technology Standards, Requirements, and Models for Technology and Learning

Internet

Acceptable Use Policy

that are needed to ensure proper use of the technology sources (e.g., guidelines, software and facilities use policies, parental consent for Internet use, etc.) Includes a well-written draft of Acceptable Use Policy. Provides a general overview (not detailed) of current & needed technology competencies. Describes a few strategies and recommendations for incentives and resources. Projects, budgets, or timelines missing; provides vague or little information on project, budgets, or timelines; projects appear not relevant to plan goals; budget estimates appear incongruent with plan or unrealistic. Writing is clear but unnecessary words are used. Meaning is not clear in some instances. Few errors in spelling/grammar.

Professional Development

Projects, Budgets, and Timelines

Clarity of Writing

Contributors and Stakeholder Identification Score: 2 The contributors and stakeholder identification component was basic in nature. The stakeholders were described in context of the total student base in the district. Furthermore, students were referred to as being the end user of the technology, or the one benefiting most from its use. The contributors, including district level technology personnel, were mentioned but not specifically named, even with regards to specific position titles in the district. Teachers, students, administrators, parents, community members, and staff were specifically mentioned in the document. The document could have outlaid more specific aspects of the sub populations or groups of students. Vague terms should have been replaced to show the plans targeted approach at various instructional levels. A more complete description of each contributor and stakeholder group could establish a more thorough view of the plan.

Vision and Mission Statement Score: 1 Both the vision and mission statements are included in the plan, but are lacking a thorough description and details. Each is a sentence long with one word describing what it is that the Houston County School System is envisioning for its students. The vagueness of both does not provide the reader of a true understanding of what it is that the school system is truly striving for. The mission statement only includes the description of high-achieving students. This is not sufficient. It does not provide nearly enough details or description to effectively and clearly define what it is that the school system is motivated to achieve. The same can be said about the vision statement. The vision statement gives one descriptive word, which is world-class.

This carries little meaning without any elaboration or added description. What does world-class mean to the Houston County School System? The ambiguity of the vision and mission statements give way to more questions rather than an understanding.

Access to Technology and Data Sources Score: 3 As part of the plans Current Reality section, access to technology and data sources was examined extensively. The plan outlined exactly where access stands today. The plan outlined the various infrastructure improvements that have been made to connect the schools to each other through a wide area network. The document also discussed the network drops provided in each classroom, computer lab, and media centers throughout the district. Funding for networks and access was discussed at length to establish the viability of continuation for the network infrastructure and data access. Donation of technology was discussed as well which outlined the specific minimum standards that are required for donated computers. District wide initiatives pertaining to equitable use opportunity for all stakeholders was discussed. Community and parent access initiatives were discussed to include technology-supported learning after school and community internet access and classes. The plan also noted that curriculum software was being compiled and would be released as part of the plan.

Goals, Benchmarks, and Strategies - Score: 3 The plan has multiple rubrics pertaining to these areas. Each rubric is focused on either students, teachers, administrators, or parents. Every rubric contains a description

of the goals, benchmarks, and strategies that will be employed. For each goal, there are numerous strategies for achieving the goal, as well as benchmarks that effectively relate to the strategy and goal. Not only are the rubrics included, but each section is well thought out, detailed, and organized well.

General Issues Score: 3 According to the three year plan, the school doesnt have the resources to purchase modern computers for all classrooms. Therefore, the school relies on generous donated computers. Due to age of some of the computers, they do not meet minimum requirement. Not all schools are provided with equivalent hardware resources such as interactive boards, handheld remotes, interactive assessment devices, and digital imaging devices. County level departments are in the process of developing collaborative work spaces. A timeline should be included in the updated plan.

Results & Recommendations Score: 2 The plan included phasing out computers that no longer meet system hardware specifications and increasing the student to computer ratio. All technology within the system needs to be aligned with the system vision and technology goals. Software and hardware for special needs students were provided within budget constraints. However, increasing tools needed for special needs students is a part of the three year plan. These recommendations were mentioned in the GAP Analysis report. But the improvement did not specify any timelines.

Technology Standards, Requirements, and Models for Technology & Learning Score: 2 Standards were identified in the plan. The hardware minimum requirements were explained in detail. The plan also indicated a list of all usable software will be published on the district web page. Some of their technology is limited according to a particular grade. The district needs to integrate and create interdependent architectures that tightly weave different components together to optimize performance, in terms of functionality and liability.

Internet Acceptable Use Score: 3 A copy of the districts internet acceptable use instructional program was included in the plan document. The district recognizes the importance of making advanced technology and increased access to learning opportunities available to students and staff. The document then goes on to describe the strict measures the district will take to ensure the safety of students online. The Childrens Internet Protection Act is discussed along with security measures the county implements. Terms and conditions are discussed to establish that the use of informational technology is a privilege and not a right. The districts stance on this matter places great restriction on the material students are able to view on the internet. The document should outline specific reasons for this policy yet it fails to do so. Further investigation into the districts stance is needed to complete the plan.

Professional Development Score: 2 The professional development piece of this particular technology plan provides a description of how professional development is addressed. It provides a benchmark, evaluation method, source of funding, as well as persons responsible for implementing the professional development. In addition, it states how often professional development is provided at the district level and by whom. A detailed description of the training provided to new teachers is given as well. However, the plan mentions professional learning within the schools, but fails to elaborate on what it entails and how often it is provided. This is a key aspect of professional development and if it is included in the plan, it deserves more of an explanation than is presently provided. This is an area of the technology plan that needs some improvement.

Projects, Budgets, and Timelines Score: 1 Within this technology three year plan, technology needs were identified for the school system. However, the plan fails to set any timeline for implementation of vital technological measures. The plan does not include a working budget. Clearly, an updated version needs to include a working timeline, proposed budget, and how projects should be prioritized according to availability of funds.

Clarity of Writing Score: 2 In general, the writing of the plan is concise and clear yet the plan falls short in certain places. The plan does a great job at outlining the importance of technology with

regards to its support of teaching and learning. What the plan does not do is provide adequate descriptions of specific programs or technology that can be implemented to achieve the goal of producing high achieving students. The plan does not even give an explanation of what high achieving specifically means. There is a great deal of commentary in the plan regarding purchasing and policies relating to purchasing. Ten pages of the document outlay purchasing yet specific examples of positive technology use are missing. The document ultimately should give a comprehensive view of the direction of the district in regards to technology. In the end, the document falls short in this aspect.

Conclusion Out of a total of 33 possible points, the Houston County Schools Technology Plan scored a 24 using the rubric developed for this evaluation. Although the plan meets minimum standards there are some components of the plan that need to be reevaluated. The plan mentions the districts mission statement but fails to establish a solid link between the mission and technology. Vision for technology is missing entirely and should be addressed. One of the greatest deficiencies of Houston County Schools Technology Plan is that it lacks a clear ongoing evaluation process. Specific projects and outcomes are listed in the goals, benchmarks, and strategies section yet the plan most often states that the evaluation method is incremental progress. This denotes a lack of clarity with regards to how the plan will be evaluated going forward. One might question the validity

of a plan that is set in motion and then rarely, if ever, examined to determine the success of its implementation. There is no doubt that Houston County Schools faces a difficult task in best implementing technology to achieve its mission of producing high-achieving students. Educational institutions around the country face complex issues that arise from technology endeavors. Houston County Schools has developed a solid base on which new technology initiatives can be born, yet the plan lacks a clear vision of how technology can specifically shape learning and falls short in providing adequate evaluation processes.