Running head:

TECHNOLOGY PLAN EVALUATION

Technology Plan Evaluation

Benjamin Harris
Patavious Sorrell
Dr. Charles Hodges

Abstract
Benjamin Harris and Patavious Sorrell administered an evaluation of Clayton County Public
Schools Technology Plan. Mr. Harris and Mr. Sorrell devised a rubric that was founded in
common practice where certain parts were mandated by the State of Georgia. The three rating,
twelve-topic rubric guided an analysis of the plan with an overall assessment.

Technology Plan Evaluation

The evaluated Clayton County Public Schools Technology Plan is a three-year plan written in the
2009-2010 school year. It is actively followed to provide the district a strategy to address the
technology functions of the school district.

Executive Summary: 1
Clayton County Public Schools Technology Plan received a 1 in the Executive Summary
category. The document did not have an Executive Summary. An Executive Summary is a
summary of the entire document that provides recommendations. It is intended for individuals
who do not have the time to read the entire document (Definition of Executive Summary, 2012).
The rubric details that the plan should include a statement that indicates the technology vision,
mission, goals and objectives, etc., the plan covers most of these items throughout the paper, but
fails to summarize and include recommendations in an executive summary.

Vision: 3
The technology plan includes a vision and receives a 3 on the rubric rating. Indeed, the vision
focuses on access to technology but learning is also a key component. The vision includes ideas
of the district as globally competitive. The plan also emphasizes that administrators will be
empowered to recognize impactful instructional technology use. This is important because to
simply have access to technology does not directly correlate to an impact on student
achievement.

Goals: 3
The goals of the technology plan are clearly stated and contain realistic strategies for using
education-based technology. This category receives a 3 on the rubric. The seven goals are
clearly stated and contain a list of strategies, benchmarks, evaluation methods, funding sources,
and individuals responsible for the outcomes.

Professional Development: 1
In analyzing the professional development section, it is evident that the section has a tremendous
focus on course offerings. The plan does focus on teachers and administrators, but it does not
focus on other staff in the district. The plan also does not focus on peer collaboration nor does it
have a sustainable model that addresses learning away from the attendance of a course. When
teachers are away from the course instructor, there is no model to provide technical assistance.
The professional development section receives a 1 for the lack of professional learning
innovation and sustainability.

Needs Assessment: 2
The technology plan does not have a category for needs assessment, but does address some
needs. The definition of needs assessment is the systematic effort to determine the nature of
problems, challenges, and opportunities in a specific area, and then to select interventions that
can move us towards meeting the need in the fastest, most costeffective manner (Needs
Assessment Reports, 2010). The plan addresses the need to acquire and synthesize data from
trainings to determine effectiveness. However, the training does not offer data to address the

need for technology hardware based on student and teacher use. The rubric assigned score is 2
for a lack of a comprehensive needs assessment where technology decisions are founded.

Budget: 2
There is not a budget section identified in the plan, but the plan does provide some evidence of
financial planning. The details the infrastructure costs of equipment, cabling, etc. and shows
funding from E-rate and the expense that the district must incur. The plan also projects E-rate
funding and district expenses for future years. The technology plan lists seven goals and
provides funding sources to help bring the goals to fruition. However, the plan fails to provide
detailed descriptions of hardware, software. Since the plan does a good job of listing goals and
providing funding for those goals, the budget section receives a ranking of 2.

Community: 3

Technology plan exhibits the parent and community role as a partner in technology by discussing
the use of email, website, newsletters, and a cable television show. The technology plan also
includes an analysis of some weaknesses in the system. For example, it discusses how the current
plan as is doesnt offer a more interactive web base and there is currently no way of measuring
how many parents and community members are watching the cable television show. Goal 5:
Parent and Community Uses of Technology, goes a little bit further with the topic. By 2012, the
district would like to have created an interactive portal to increase parent, teacher, student, and
overall community involvement; also, maintain at least 10 technology related shows produced
yearly on the cable station.

Tech Standards: 3

The System Readiness portion of the plan discusses aspects such as connectivity that are already
in place. Goals 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 all discuss the bare minimum requirements that the district will
set forth by 2012. For example, all teachers will have at least one 21st century classroom
component per 5 teachers. 21st century components include, but are not limited to, document
cameras, student clickers, and digital camera equipment. Also, it will be the norm that each
classroom will have at least 5 student accessible computers per classroom. Any new school
construction will have all new digital components placed throughout. Examples of two software
applications that were mentioned for implementation are Thinkgate (to disaggregate data in order
to differentiate instruction and increase student learning in subgroups) and LoTi Profiler Tool (an
observation tool for classroom teacher technology integration and innovation assessment). Also,
the standard will be that all students will exhibit proficiency in the technology of the district by
the 8th grade.

Educational Research: 1
As I searched throughout the document I did not come across any specific mentions at
Educational Research.

Software Agreements: 2

As stated previously, Thinkgate and LoTi are the only software implementation that is mentioned
in the tech plan. Within the goals and benchmarks area the plan discusses updating software that
is aligned with the curriculum, but fails to discuss specifics.

Policies and Procedures: 3

The Appendices area is clearly defined with the districts policies and procedures as pertaining to
the use of its technology. Included in this area is the notification of compliance with the Children
Internet Protection Act, the Acceptable Use Policy, the Board Policy, and the Student Internet
Agreement form. Each of these documents discusses what is deemed as acceptable and
unacceptable usage of the district technology.

Conclusion/Recommendations: 2

I believe that for each section the goals, needs, and challenges were clearly defined; but, there
were no clearly defined aspects of how to reach those goals and meet the needs and challenges.
For example, in the Parent and Community Gap Analysis, it discusses the challenges that must
be met in order to have increased parent and community involvement. What is not discussed is
the option of how.
In summary, Clayton County Public Schools Technology Plan is acceptable, but it clearly needs
be more specific in how it addresses the needs of the district through technology. It fits my
overall evaluation of the district in that there is a lack of communication as it relates to the needs
of the teachers and staff and the ideas of its leadership. A clearly written needs assessment is

needed where educators, students, and the community are involved. The data collected from all
stakeholders should be used in the decision making where technology purchases are concerned.

References
Needs Assessment Reports. (2010). Daryl L. Sink and Associates, Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.dsink.com/needs.html
Definition of Executive Summary. (2012). Colorado State University. Retrieved from
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/documents/execsum/pop2a.cfm

Appendix
Technology Plan Rubric
Components
Executive
Summary

Vision

Goals

Professional
Development

3
The plan should include a statement
indicating the technology vision,
mission, goals and objectives,
background, findings, issues,
conclusions, and recommendations
of the plan
The vision for using technology
focuses on learning, not technology.
The technology vision supports the
overall vision of the district.
The Goals are clearly stated and
contain a realistic strategy for using
education-based technology
All of the following items are present:

Needs
Assessment

Budget

Plan supports all staff

within the school/district.
Staff development is
supported through
collaboration with peers.

Technical assistance is
provided.

Goals and activities

support student learning
through:
o new
instructional
methods.
o involving
teachers in
curriculum
design.
o exploration of
the possibilities
of technology
innovations in
education.
o meeting the
individual
learner needs.
o ongoing and
sequential
course work.

Assessment is comprehensive and

contains detailed information from
hardware resources, technology
needs assessment and Maturity
Model Benchmark surveys; identifies
use by students and staff, and
training received and desired.
Provides budget summary estimate
of capital expenses (hardware,
software, facilities, infrastructure,
staff development, tech support,
etc.) Identifies possible alternative

Provides adequate and accurate

information in Executive Summary.

Executive Summary is absent or

incomplete.

A vision is present, but it focuses on

the access to technology. Learning
is not a key component. The
technology vision is a duplicate of
the districts vision.
The Goals are not clear for how
education-based technology will be
used.
Many of the following items are
present:

A vision is not listed or not clearly stated.

There are no stated Goals.

A few of the following items are present:

Plan supports all staff

within the school/district.

Plan supports all staff within

the school/district.

Staff development is
supported through
collaboration with peers.

Staff development is
supported through
collaboration with peers.

Technical assistance is
provided.

Technical assistance is
provided.

Goals and activities

support student learning
through:
o new
instructional
methods.
o involving
teachers in
curriculum
design.
o exploration of
the
possibilities of
technology
innovations in
education.
o meeting the
individual
learner needs.
o ongoing and
sequential
course work.

Goals and activities support

student learning through:
o new instructional
methods.
o involving teachers
in curriculum
design.
o exploration of the
possibilities of
technology
innovations in
education.
o meeting the
individual learner
needs.
o ongoing and
sequential course
work.

Technology has been assessed and

analyzed, but may not include
summaries of information from all
elements in the technology surveys.

Needs Assessment is absent or

incomplete.

Provides most, but not all, of the

budget estimate information.
Appears to be generally consistent
with plan goals.

Budgets are missing; budget estimates

appear incongruent with plan or
unrealistic

Community

Technology
Standards,
Requirements,
and Models for
Technology
Learning

Educational
Research

Software
Agreements

Policies and
Procedures

Conclusions and
Recommendation
s

funding resources. Projects,

timelines, and budgets are realistic
and consistent with plan goals and
objectives.
Action steps indicate how technology
will be used to promote parental
involvement and increase
communication with parents. Action
steps indicate how the district will
collaborate, when applicable, with
adult literacy service providers.
Provides clear and
comprehensive description of the
capabilities of hardware and learning
environments. It identifies minimum
standards and requirements for
computer hardware, software, and
connectivity; describes the types of
learning environments that currently
exist and those to be created by the
plan.
Specific educational
research is mentioned, and
connections are made to the efforts
in the schools.
Specific software policy is
articulated with plans to
accommodate software needs at the
site.
State and federal policy
requirements are addressed within
the plan. These include, for example,
the Children's Internet Protection Act
(CIPA), copyright use, and a draft of a
well written acceptable use policy.
Clearly identifies the most
important needs and challenges
confronting the district and
recommends the projects and steps
to be taken to achieve the vision.
Conclusions are strong and relevant.

Action steps indicate how

technology will be used to
communicate with some
stakeholders in the community.

There is no indication that technology

will be used to reach out to the
community.

Provides general description of

hardware, software and connectivity
standards and requirements.
Although clear, may miss some
information elements.

Technology standards, requirements and

models are missing, incomplete, or
vague.

Specific educational research is

made, but not connections to the
schools.

No educational research is mentioned.

Software agreements and policy are

mentioned, but the specific policies
are not articulated in the plan.

No software agreements or policy is

mentioned.

Provides an adequate description of

the most relevant policy issues.
Includes an adequate draft of
Acceptable Use Policy.

Policy issues are absent, incomplete, or

difficult to understand; lack of
Acceptable Use Policy draft.

Conclusions and recommendations

are adequately justified although
the basis of some conclusions not
entirely clear.

Conclusions and recommendations are

missing or are not adequately justified
based on the information gathered in
planning process.