Region and Higher - Week 12

Week 12 Step 9 - Critique the Existing Technology Plan
Critique the existing technology plan in your school/district and answer the following questions:

 

1.   How did the plan meet the existing needs in technology, funding, and management issues?

The existing technology plan is organized by objective and includes the use of technology, funding, and management throughout the entire plan.  The first section is organized by teaching and learning strategies.  This can be categorized as a management feature when evaluating the current plan.  Funding is tied directly to the objective and technology in included within the individual strategies assigned to each objective.  “There has been a gap between the potential of technology and its measurable impact on learning. Buying a cart of laptops or wiring a school is no longer the end goal. New federal priorities tell us that the ultimate result must be an increase in student achievement, and if technology can support this result and prove its worth, then technology can be an integral component of a grant application.” (Love, 2011, p. 60)  The next objective is defined by Educator preparation and development. Again, funding is tied directly to each objective.  Technology is included in each of the strategies related to specific objectives and the management area is included within the organization of the individual objectives.  The third objective is directly related to management.  This objective is defined as leadership and administration support which is specifically designed at the technology plan management.  Objective 3 again ties funding to each objective.  The final objective relates specifically to the technology aspect of the plan.  Objective 4 works to outline the specific infrastructure goals with the utilization of specific technology to assist in the achievement of the objective.

Below are the specific objectives created to develop the current technology plan.

Objective 1.1

Teaching and learning

$1,029,024

LRPT –teaching and learning

ERATE –NCLB Correlates: 01

1.1.1                    Professional assistance

1.1.2                    Technical assistance

1.1.3                    Direct service to students

1.1.4                    Planning and evaluation

Objective 1.2

Support state/federal initiatives throughout Region/state as evidence

$1,368,000

LRPT – teaching and learning

ERATE –

NCLB Correlates: 04a, 04b, 07

1.2.1    Professional development

1.2.2    Technical support

1.2.3    Direct services to students

Objective 1.3

The lowest performing campuses in the Region for reading, writing, and/or math will[F1]  improve the TAKS scores for those areas identified. Targets will be established for each campus.

$4,032

LRPT Teaching and learning

ERATE Correlates – ER02

NCLB Correlates: 02, 08, 11

1.2.1 Professional development

1.3.2 Technical assistance

1.3.3 Direct services to students

1.3.4 Planning/evaluation

1.3.5 Meetings

Objective 1.4

Initiate and support campus/district efforts to meet the guidelines of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act as indicated by the standards and Adequate Yearly Progress.

$206,784

LRPT – teaching and learning

ERATE –NCLB Correlates: 01, 02

1.4.1 Professional development

1.4.2 Technical Assistance

1.4.3 Planning/Evaluation

1.4.4 Communication/Dissemination

Objective 2.1

Initiate and support campus/district efforts to assess needs for technology related professional development and include integration technology training needs in all regional planning

$752,058

LRPT –Educator preparation and development

ERATE –NCLB Correlates: 02

NCLB 04a, 04b, 05, 07, 08, 11, 12

1.1.1                    professional development

Objective 2.3

The ESC will provide support and collaboration in the use of technology and will work to secure external grant/funding resources to enhance professional development opportunities for district staff.

$135,432

LRPT –Educator preparation and development

ERATE –NCLB Correlates:

NCLB: 05, 06

2.3.1 Professional development

Objective 3.1

Enhance district effectiveness/efficiency: Provide access to and support for ESC services and regionally shared services/fess based programs and support State/Federal initiatives throughout the Region/State as evidence by programmatic documentation.

$1,608,900

LRPT – Leadership, administration support

ERATE –NCLB Correlates:

NCLB: 03, 06

1.1.1                    professional development

1.1.2                    planning/evaluation

1.1.3                    communication/ dissemination

Objective 3.2

Enhance district effectiveness/efficiency: Support technology/education initiatives as evidence by programmatic documentation and grants submitted.

$236, 880

LRPT –Leadership, administration support

ERATE –

NCLB

1.2.1                    professional development

1.2.2                    direct services to students

1.2.3                    communication/Dissemination

Objective 3.3

Enhance district effectiveness/efficiency: Support State/Federal initiatives throughout the Region/State as evidence by programmatic documentation.

$1,765,904

LRPT –Leadership, administration support

ERATE –

NCLB – 01, 02, 04a, 05, 06, 12

3.3.1 Professional development

3.3.2 Technical assistance

3.3.3 Meetings

Objective 3.4

 Enhance district effectiveness/efficiency: Planning/Budgeting/Evaluation to assure efficiency of ESC operations as documented by program records

$1,764,000

LRPT –Leadership, administration support

ERATE –01, 02

NCLB

3.4.1 Technical assistance

3.4.2 Planning evaluation

Objective 3.5

Enhance district effectiveness/efficiency: Technical assistance/Training ESC staff

$153,099

LRPT –Leadership, administration support

ERATE – 01, 02

NCLB –

3.5.1 Professional development

3.5.2 Technical assistance

3.5.3 Communication/Dissemination

Objective 4.1

The LAN/WAN structure will be optimized to meet the needs of all facets of the Region 14 enterprise

$2,878,824

LRPT –Infrastructure for technology

ERATE – 01, 02

NCLB – 02, 03, 05, 06, 08, 12

4.1.1 The region and West Texas Telecommunications Consortium will maintain or enhance the LAN/WAN speed/bandwidth between each site.

4.1.2 The region will maintain wireless access points, switches, routers, file servers, phone service, cellular and pagers services, and UPSs throughout each location infrastructure as needed and is appropriate.

4.1.3 Work to secure external grants/funding resources to enhance infrastructure and seek strategic partnerships with public and private entities.

Objective 4.2

100% Internet connectivity will be maintained from every location in the region

$47,196

LRPT –Infrastructure for technology

ERATE – 01, 02

NCLB –

4.2.1 The region will maintain interactive web-based services with both Internet and intranet components and will commit to participate in the state technology system and maintain an infrastructure for communication with parents and community members.

Objective 4.2

The region will work toward optimal user/computer ratio in the regional buildings

$257,949

LRPT –Infrastructure for technology

ERATE –

NCLB – 03

4.3.1 The region will maintain a 1:1 ratio of computer to staff person

Objective 4.4

The region will continue to discover and include new and emerging technologies where appropriate to maximize user potential

$15,000

LRPT –Infrastructure for technology

ERATE –02

NCLB – 04a, 04b, 07

4.4.1 A standardized telephony system with integrated messaging installed and maintained at each desktop ion the regional buildings.

4.4.2 Shared use of specialized technologies such as video conferencing systems, digital cameras, scanners, projection devices, and digital video cameras will be in place.

2.   How did the goals provide the measurable outcomes for future improvement?

The goals provided are measurable because they use the existing E-Rate, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), The Long range plan for technology (LRPT) for Texas schools, and Education Service Center strategies from the quality management system to tie the plan to state, federal, and local evaluation methods that can be measured by the instatements including TAKS testing, STaR charts, Yearly Adequate Progress indicators, and the Region 14 quality objectives.  .  “Electronic data acquisition technology expands our ability to gather information. Traditionally, assessment and evaluation information has been acquired in three ways—by observing people or things, by listening to people talk as individuals or as participants in a group, or by completing a paper and pencil assessment or evaluation instrument. The next generation of assessment and evaluation experts also will observe, listen, and write, but they will not be using technology merely to acquire data more quickly and efficiently; the nature of the information acquired will change as well.” (Hanson, 1997, p. 33)  By using existing state and federal methods of evaluation the technology plan is sound for the future evaluation methods.  If a change is needed the plan can be modified to address changes from the federal and state methods of evaluation and the quality objects would be adjusted to meet theses guidelines as well.

How did the strategies defined to meet the proposed objectives?

By using current Education Service Center strategies in correlation with the state long range plan for technology (LRPT) and the Federal E-Rate objectives and No Child Left behind (NCLB) objectives the plan does meet all proposed objectives and is very well documented in its measurement.  It is important to note the changes in the federal requirements.  “The template is designed to help school districts develop an effective technology use plan that addresses: district strategic initiatives, curriculum development and implementation, professional development, infrastructure, hardware, technical support, software, community involvement, fiscal planning, data management, monitoring and evaluation. The planning process is designed to be a shared activity that not only includes schools and districts, but also the community at large.” (Connecticut Districts Prepare New Technology Plans, 2009, p. 2)  But, some of the the evaluation tools are still being evaluated on the state and federal level to determine guidelines for the new initiatives of the federal government.  Once they are approved the technology plan can serve as a template for future plans.

References

Connecticut Districts Prepare New Technology Plans. (cover story). (2009). Electronic Education Report, 16(3), 1

Hanson, G. R. (1997). Using technology in assessment and evaluation. New Directions For Student Services, (78), 31.

Love, P. (2011). The New Approach to Reeling in Tech Funding. District Administration, 47(3), 60,.