1. How did the plan meet the existing needs in technology, funding, and management issues?
My plan met existing needs in technology because it is helping teachers to be more efficient in their technology using. They will not have to be waiting for technicians to come and fix simple solutions. They will become more knowledgeable in their computer usage by doing these simple trouble shooting tips. One of the goals of our professional development technology plan is for "Staff development sessions provide ample “hands-on” experience with technology (Huntsville Independent School District, 2010– 2013)." What better way to give "hands-on" experiences than by actually getting your hands in a computer!
As for funding, my goal of having more teachers to write grants will allow teachers to try and get the things they need from a grant before going out and asking for the district to buy them or buying them, themselves. This will help alleviate a lack of funds in both the teachers pockets and the districts budget.
The management goal of asking teachers for suggestions for the upcoming years professional development will keep teachers involved in the training and also make it more beneficial to all that are involved.
2. How did the goals provide the measurable outcomes for future improvement?
The goals have provided measurable outcomes because more and more teachers are doing simple trouble shooting tips to help themselves be able to use technology more efficiently. We would like to say that we are trying to help out the technicians, but most people are just trying to be able to use their computers and technology more frequently. When teachers have to wait for technicians to come up to the school to work on their devices, it takes time away from using it for their lesson. If teachers can quickly fix their computers on their own, they do not have that lack in usage time.
As for the funding goal, more grants were written than any other year in the past 5 years. More people were aware of the ability to get funding for their resources, and more teachers were wanting to write grants because they know that funding is still being cut for the upcoming year. The representative from HEF, Sara Williams, also was on hand and offered help to anyone who wrote a grant. I wrote a grant and Williams helped me to edit it and make it look better. She said, "Anyone can write a grant that wants to improve their classroom (Williams, 2012)."
As for management, the measurable outcomes will be the results of the surveys from teachers at the end of the year. Administration will then go through these surveys and check to see what teachers want and work those into our professional development plan. They will be able to get teachers the training that they want and be able to reach more teacher's goals.
3. How did the strategies defined to meet the proposed objectives?
Our technology plan does not have a strict timeline for when these strategies need to be implemented. It has suggestions of goals, but not defined objectives. Taking the proposed goals and making more specific objectives may help for the technology plan to become more effective.
Bibliography:
Huntsville Independent School District. (2010– 2013, July). Retrieved April 16, 2012, from Technology Plan: http://www.huntsville-isd.org/pdf_files/TechnologyPlan2010-2013.pdf
Williams, S. (2012, April 14). HEF Representative from Stewart Elementary. (B. Costello, Interviewer)
Monday, April 16, 2012
Beaumont ISD, Joy Schwartz
Week 12 Step 9 - Critique the Existing Technology Plan
Critique the existing technology plan in your school/district and answer the following questions:
Discussion STEP 9:
After conducting a needs assessment, our district identified the following critical areas of need in technology, funding and management issues.
*Time to accommodate technology-related professional development
Due to increased demands on the time of all personnel, the scheduling of staff development opportunities continues to be a challenge. Various methods of training have been incorporated into staff development, however reaching all necessary staff with effective training is not always accomplished. The district has begun to evaluate on-line, on-demand, and real-time video-based training on a small scale to see if technology can assist with effectively reaching all users. The initial response has been very positive. Utilizing this technology is proving to be a great success since ALL users can be reached with the necessary information at a time when the individual is available to participate. This new type of professional development delivery will greatly reduce the amount of necessary trainers while effectively conveying topic specific staff development to ALL users. This new solution however, brings about new challenges. Not only will the district have to invest in hardware and software to deliver the content but will also be required to have necessary technical personnel to ensure that the infrastructure is available at all times.
*Need for technical personnel to support all existing and new technologies
Technology continues to change on a daily basis and the demands for utilizing new technologies in the classroom are sky rocketing. Many technologies which have traditionally been maintained by other departments are now being incorporated into the IT world. These technologies include security systems, voice communications, video, and building controls just to name a few. These new technologies can greatly enhance learning, provide for safer schools, and reduce overall costs but not without an impact on IT environments. The necessary skilled personnel will have to be put in place to support the new demands in all areas of computing
*Increased need for instructional technology personnel in the classrooms
Teachers are focused on delivering the best possible lessons in classrooms and have been well-trained in traditional teaching methods. In today’s technology world, teachers must be able to embrace and incorporate new teaching methods into their curriculum utilizing these innovative technologies. By implementing new positions in instructional technology, classroom teachers could begin to observe and develop new lessons geared towards technology-minded students.
*Demands for technology funding
Funding continues to be a challenge for all school systems and with current economic trends there is no change on the horizon. Districts must try to find creative solutions for funding projects while at the same time working smarter to reduce costs in all areas. The district will continue to focus on funding sources such as grants and E-Rate while at the same time evaluating technologies which can potentially save dollars through reduced energy consumption and consolidation of services.
Due to increased demands on the time of all personnel, the scheduling of staff development opportunities continues to be a challenge. Various methods of training have been incorporated into staff development, however reaching all necessary staff with effective training is not always accomplished. The district has begun to evaluate on-line, on-demand, and real-time video-based training on a small scale to see if technology can assist with effectively reaching all users. The initial response has been very positive. Utilizing this technology is proving to be a great success since ALL users can be reached with the necessary information at a time when the individual is available to participate. This new type of professional development delivery will greatly reduce the amount of necessary trainers while effectively conveying topic specific staff development to ALL users. This new solution however, brings about new challenges. Not only will the district have to invest in hardware and software to deliver the content but will also be required to have necessary technical personnel to ensure that the infrastructure is available at all times.
*Need for technical personnel to support all existing and new technologies
Technology continues to change on a daily basis and the demands for utilizing new technologies in the classroom are sky rocketing. Many technologies which have traditionally been maintained by other departments are now being incorporated into the IT world. These technologies include security systems, voice communications, video, and building controls just to name a few. These new technologies can greatly enhance learning, provide for safer schools, and reduce overall costs but not without an impact on IT environments. The necessary skilled personnel will have to be put in place to support the new demands in all areas of computing
*Increased need for instructional technology personnel in the classrooms
Teachers are focused on delivering the best possible lessons in classrooms and have been well-trained in traditional teaching methods. In today’s technology world, teachers must be able to embrace and incorporate new teaching methods into their curriculum utilizing these innovative technologies. By implementing new positions in instructional technology, classroom teachers could begin to observe and develop new lessons geared towards technology-minded students.
*Demands for technology funding
Funding continues to be a challenge for all school systems and with current economic trends there is no change on the horizon. Districts must try to find creative solutions for funding projects while at the same time working smarter to reduce costs in all areas. The district will continue to focus on funding sources such as grants and E-Rate while at the same time evaluating technologies which can potentially save dollars through reduced energy consumption and consolidation of services.
I still maintain that on paper our district has a fabulous technology plan. They conducted a thorough needs assessment across the district, and I think they identified four areas which need more attention. The question I am to answer, however, is how did the district meet the existing needs in technology, funding, and management. The plan includes a need for professional development on-line, on-demand, and real-time video training. This has not been met. The district offered some training online a couple of years ago, but nothing since.
Another need was technical support personnel for all the new technology equipment. That need still exists. operation.
A third need was that of an instructional technologist on each campus to assist teachers with lesson plans and incorporating technology into their daily classroom routine. That need has not been met either. As a matter of fact when I had the opportunity to attend a district planning meeting at the administration building last a SHSU classmate, the supervisor of instructional technology and myself each voiced the need for and the importance of this position. Our current superintendent said there was no funding for such a position, however, it is in the district plan! Our superintendent-elect seems to have technology as more of a priority though.
The fourth need is the only need that I feel has been satisfied. We continue to receive the e-rate funding each year. I am not sure what other avenues the district seeks funding from, but I have been invited to serve on a district technology team and we are to meet May 11, and that is one of my first questions: Where else are we seeking money?
The goals for professional development had measurable outcomes of the number of documented hours accumulated , an increase in attendance at technology training, and computer-based training staff development logs. No specific percentages or numbers were associated with the measurable outcomes, but all of these items can be analyzed to assist with future improvement of technology training.
The measurable outcomes for both of the mentioned personnel would obviously be the hiring of said personnel. When these positions are created and filled, then we will know that we have met these goals.
For the funding, one measurable outcome would be the e-rate grant awarded yet again. Other measurable outcomes include the number of grant proposals submitted to external resources, and the number of grants received.
One strategy is to continue to receive the e-rate grant or funding. For the district to continue to receive this grant each year the district must reapply, and submit a technology plan for the district and it must be approved by TEA.
Another strategy for funding is to seek out other grants. The district will need a grant writing team that will follow TEA’s guidelines. Some possible grants available are: American Reinvestment and Recovery Act,Carl D. Perkins, No Child Left Behind, School Improvement Program, Statewide Longitudinal Data System LEA Grant, Title VI, Part B, Subpart 2 – Rural Low Income School Program, Life Skills Parenting Program, Optional Extended Year Program, Prekindergarten Early Start (PKES) Tier 2, Year 2, Special Education, Student Clubs Grant, Cycle 2, and Student Success Initiative Program (SSI). (TEA, 2012)
To improve the number of attendees at technology professional development, some strategies are to provide ongoing sustained professional development, and also, provide on-line staff development registration and records portfolio.
The strategy for the personnel positions is to provide a technology-proficient, certified teacher to serve as full-time instructional technologists on each campus as a natural part of staffing.
References
BISD Technology Plan. (2010).
TEA Grant Resources. 2012. Retrieved on March 19, 2012 from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147487920&menu_id=951.
Region & Higher - Norma Vazquez
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?
Since IT@Sam does not have an existing technology plan there is no plan for me to critique. However, upper management is in the proccess of developing a plan that will be in alignment with the university's strategic plan. My concerns with the plan is that it may not address the current needs in technology, funding, and management since the focus is being placed in alignment with the strategic goals. The only thing that is assessible that identifies any strategic goals is a website that includes 6 Strategic goals and indicators for each one. However, based on the dates listed on the website the content is over 5 years old ("Strategic Goals", 2007).
References:
Strategic Goals. (2007). Retrieved on April 16, 2012 from the Sam Houston State University website at http://www.shsu.edu/~ucs_www/goals.html
2. How did the goals provide the measurable outcomes for future improvement?
Strategic Goals. (2007). Retrieved on April 16, 2012 from the Sam Houston State University website at http://www.shsu.edu/~ucs_www/goals.html
3. How did the strategies defined to meet the proposed objectives?
Since there is not a technology plan with proposed objectives there is no way to determine whether the strategies meet the proposed objectives. Based on the indicators provided in the website that includes the Strategic Goals I feel that those indicators were appropriate. However, it does need to include what the purpose behind each strategy. For example in the following strategic goal "Assist University departments with web page design to help increase the Internet
search ranking of SHSU" (Strategic Goals, 2007) there should be an objective that is in alignment with the University's strategic plan. For this particular goal I feel that it would fit well under the university goal that states "Place a targeted emphases on marketing and institutional branding" (SHSU Strategic Plan, 2011) because improving the hits should help market our university. Addtionally, it would fit well under the following goal that states "Identify appropriate five-year plans for targets for enrollment growth and mix and it's instructional and service implications" (SHSU Strategic Plan, 2011) because with more hits on our sites we hope that more students will enroll.
References:
SHSU Strategic Plan. (2011). Retrieved on April 16, 2012 from the Sam Houston State University website at http://www.shsu.edu/~pre_www/documents/StrategicPlanFinal8%201%2011%20-%20Aug%202011.pdf
1. How did the plan meet the existing needs in technology, funding, and
management issues?
Since IT@Sam does not have an existing technology plan there is no plan for me to critique. However, upper management is in the proccess of developing a plan that will be in alignment with the university's strategic plan. My concerns with the plan is that it may not address the current needs in technology, funding, and management since the focus is being placed in alignment with the strategic goals. The only thing that is assessible that identifies any strategic goals is a website that includes 6 Strategic goals and indicators for each one. However, based on the dates listed on the website the content is over 5 years old ("Strategic Goals", 2007).
References:
Strategic Goals. (2007). Retrieved on April 16, 2012 from the Sam Houston State University website at http://www.shsu.edu/~ucs_www/goals.html
2. How did the goals provide the measurable outcomes for future improvement?
- Information Technology will increase the percentage of faculty utilizing the web-based learning management system. During FY07, participation was approximately 71%. We will target a participation of 75% for FY08.
*This specific goal specifies an increase in participation from faculty utilizing the web-based learning management system. This goal can be measured by checking the learning management system to obtain an actual number of classes being taught. - Information Technology will increase the number of participants in one-on-one, group, or town hall training. During FY06 we had 218 participants. Based on current reservations for FY07, we estimate 229 for the year. We will target an increase of 5% for FY08. Information Technology will conduct an annual survey of teaching faculty regarding satisfaction level with student computer labs. We will target a 90% satisfaction level for the first year survey. *This specific goal addresses the number of participants for our trainings and an increase in satisfaction levels. The number of participants can be measured using a login sheet to track the number of participants attending. The satisfaction level will be measured by assigning a number weight to each question to get an average overall rating. Since there is no present data to which to compare the client satisfaction level to determine if there was improvement.
- Information Technology will continue to attend state, regional, and national
conferences. During FY06 Information Technology attended approximately 11
conferences. We will target to increase attendance to 12 conferences for FY08.
*This goal address the number of professional development conferences attended by IT@Sam staff. This can be measured by gathering the travel and purchasing documentation for each conference. - Information Technology will target a goal of three presentations made by
Information Technology staff at state, regional, or national conferences during
FY08.
*Again this can be measured by gathering the actual presentations presented by our staff; however, there is no past data on the number of presentations on past conferences therefore we are unable to measure if there was an improvement.
- Information Technology will increase the number of visits to the SHSU web
site. Visits for calendar year 2006 were approximately 17,000,000. We will
target an increase to 20,000,000 for calendar year 2007.
*This goal measure the number of visits to the main website. It can be measured using Google analytics to see if there was an improvement.
Strategic Goals. (2007). Retrieved on April 16, 2012 from the Sam Houston State University website at http://www.shsu.edu/~ucs_www/goals.html
3. How did the strategies defined to meet the proposed objectives?
Since there is not a technology plan with proposed objectives there is no way to determine whether the strategies meet the proposed objectives. Based on the indicators provided in the website that includes the Strategic Goals I feel that those indicators were appropriate. However, it does need to include what the purpose behind each strategy. For example in the following strategic goal "Assist University departments with web page design to help increase the Internet
search ranking of SHSU" (Strategic Goals, 2007) there should be an objective that is in alignment with the University's strategic plan. For this particular goal I feel that it would fit well under the university goal that states "Place a targeted emphases on marketing and institutional branding" (SHSU Strategic Plan, 2011) because improving the hits should help market our university. Addtionally, it would fit well under the following goal that states "Identify appropriate five-year plans for targets for enrollment growth and mix and it's instructional and service implications" (SHSU Strategic Plan, 2011) because with more hits on our sites we hope that more students will enroll.
References:
SHSU Strategic Plan. (2011). Retrieved on April 16, 2012 from the Sam Houston State University website at http://www.shsu.edu/~pre_www/documents/StrategicPlanFinal8%201%2011%20-%20Aug%202011.pdf
Private School - Susan Bevier
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 for Rawson-Saunders School is out-of-date,
written at least six years ago. It was written based on the Texas Campus STaR
Chart, and addresses campus technology in four areas: Teaching and Learning,
Administrative Support and Outreach, Educator Preparation and Professional
Development, and Infrastructure for Technology. The Texas Campus STaR Chart’s
four sections are Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation & Development;
Leadership, Administration & Instructional Support; and Infrastructure for
Technology (Texas Education Agency, 2006).
The existing technology plan does not address funding of technology. The
Texas Campus STaR Chart’s only mention of funding refers to the goals and
objectives in the Campus Improvement Plan, not the technology plan:
“Campus discretionary funds and other resources are allocated to advance
implementation of all technology strategies to meet the goals and objectives outlined
in the Campus Improvement Plan.” (Texas Education Agency, 2006)
The existing technology plan addressed management needs in terms of
planning, purchasing, and implementing student management software, and
creating core competencies for the faculty, setting expectations for the
faculty to achieve that level of competency, and planning and supporting
professional development in technology. Implied in the plan is administrative
support for all its components.
Technology is addressed in the existing plan by creating a robust
infrastructure. When the plan was written, Rawson-Saunders had a peer-to-peer
network; the plan was to create a client/server network and wireless access. The
technology plan also specifies technology in the classroom to support teaching
and learning: presentation equipment and computers.
2. How did the goals provide the measurable outcomes for future improvement?
A technology plan is to ensure that technology is
effectively integrated into instruction. It should be more than a roadmap for
providing computers and software, but must promote professional development and
support, meaningful learning in the classroom, and provide the mechanism for
evaluation and change. It should be a part of an overall school improvement
plan (November, 1998). Although November wrote about the development of the
technology plan more than ten years ago, his description is still relevant
today.
The existing
technology plan was written as a part of the school improvement plan. The plan’s goals are
not broken into measurable objectives, but are measurable in that they are
assigned dates by which they must be realized.
3. How did the strategies defined to meet the proposed objectives?
The
technology goals are realized through effective planning strategies. The
strategies should address resources, training, support, innovation, and
communication (Decker, 2004). The existing technology plan does not
specifically list strategies. The plan does list objectives with associated
dates for implementation, which becomes a timeline. While this is not the same
as strategies, it does provide an order for implementation.
Resources
Decker, K. (2004). Technology
planning strategies. Retrieved April 16, 2012, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED490100.pdf
November, A. (1998). Critical
Issue: Developing a school or district technology plan. Retrieved February
25, 2012, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te300.htm
Texas Education Agency. (2006). Texas campus STaR chart. Retrieved April 16, 2012, from http://starchart.epsilen.com/docs/TxCSC.pdf
Hearne Elementary-Hearne ISD - Marlise Golden
1. How did the plan meet the existing needs in technology, funding, and management issues?
My district currently does not have a technology plan in place. I am on a committee that is in the process of developing a plan to be implemented in the near future. During this course I have been creating objectives and goals that would suit the needs of our district. My goal is to submit my plan to the committee to use in the development of the new plan for the district. The objectives and goals that I have created for technology, funding, and management all meet the needs of the district as of right now or until others are created to replace what I have.
Technology Objective:
Students use creative thinking and innovative processes to construct knowledge and develop products. Through the study of technology operations and concepts, students learn technology related terms, concepts, and data input strategies. Students develop critical-thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills by collecting, analyzing, and reporting digital information. (Texas Education Agency, 2011) Student mastery of basic computer skills and knowledge of hardware and software usage capability will determine if objectives are being met by each student. Adequate computer skills will promote student success in the classroom and create lifelong learners in the growing digital society.
Funding Objective:
Hearne ISD will allocate funds to employ an Instructional Technologist for the district and a Technology/Computer Lab Teacher for the elementary campus to satisfy the requirements of the Technology Plan. Funds will be generated from the State and other Grants for technology usage. The objective should be met by the beginning of the 2012-2013 school years with specific job descriptions in place.
• Many of the barriers that currently exist to implementing the recommendations of the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1996-2010 involve the lack of adequate funding for administrators and educational technology staff to fully address their students’ educational needs. (Long Range-Plan for Technology, 2010)
Management Objective:
Utilize a functional Technology Plan/Technology Professional Development Plan to ensure the advancement of all students in technology though curriculum and instruction. Provide sufficient professional development for all professional staff to use technology provided on the campus proficiently to implement more technology into instructional lessons. The objective can be measured by frequently monitoring technology implementation by the teachers and student achievement according to the goals in the technology plan.
2. How did the goals provide the measurable outcomes for future improvement?
The goals that I have written allow the district/local campuses to evaluate the outcomes and rewrite them as needed or at the end of the plan term. Since my district is working on developing a plan the goals that I have chosen to write focus on the needs of the district that were determined by a survey sent to the staff.
Goal 1: Hire and maintain a highly qualified Instructional Technologist
• Evaluate job performance by formal evaluations, walk through
• Survey teachers to determine in the instructional technologist is knowledgeable and helpful on each campus
• Review documentation of continued education credits earned on a yearly basis
• Verify requirements for hire (education, certifications, experience etc.)
• Review documentation (list) of current and new software to determine changes and or improvements
Goal 2: Develop a Technology Plan/Technology Professional Development Plan
• Review technology plan meeting minutes to determine if adequate and obtainable goals are being
created
• Evaluate drafts of the plan to determine if goals are measurable
Goal 3: Staff computer lab with highly qualified teacher(s) on the elementary campus to teach TEKS objectives (k-6) for Technology.
• Evaluate yearly rehire information from campus principal
• Maintain allocated funding for teacher retention
• Review lesson plans for current TEKS standards and objectives for technology
Goal 4: Provide adequate technology professional development for all staff
• Mandatory evaluation sheets or electronic surveys concerning each technology professional development session to rate the training
• All technology professional development sessions will have some form of training to provide staff with hands on examples to be completed at least 75% during the session ready to use in the classroom
• Sign in sheets for staff to verify attendance
• Provide documentation form any technology professional development that is not local
3. How did the strategies defined to meet the proposed objectives?
The district first has to create and adopt a technology plan before the strategies within the plan can be implemented. Management objectives have to be achieved and in place first to tie the funding and technology objectives together. Once the district has the plan in place then the assessments will show that the objectives are needed for the district to improve in the area of technology. The goals that have been created lead to student success which is derived from successful management skills to provide funding for adequate professional development that will ensure implementation of more technology throughout the entire district.
References:
Long Range-Plan for Technology. (2010, August). Retrieved February 23, 2012, from Texas Education Agency: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
Texas Education Agency. (2011, September 26). Retrieved February 26, 2012, from Chapter 126. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Technology Applications: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter126/ch126a.html
Middle School-Deborah Parker
1. How did the plan meet the existing needs in technology,
funding, and management issues?
Currently the district plan
states that it is close to reaching the state goal of three students for every
one computer, but since this goal was recently changed to 1:1 in the 2007 Texas
Long-Range Plan for Technology the current technology plan is going to need to
be updated. The technology
services center personnel have been working diligently to raise funds to work
toward these goals by writing numerous grants. The current technology budget isn’t large enough to quickly
reach these goals and funding will have to be located outside of normal funding
options. Most technology funds are
being used to update telecommunication services, Internet access, and
electronic computer and cabling for eligible computers. (ISTE NETs, 2012)
The current plan includes
allowing students to bring their own devices to be used at school but the
district will need to have sufficient computers within classrooms to make sure
that all technology TEKS are taught. To fulfill these needs, the district plans to maintain
the use of mobile computer units (COWs) for classroom use. All campuses are equipped with wireless
connectivity and many of the campuses have spent campus funds to make sure that
projectors are available in each classroom teachers’ classroom. (Bryan ISD, 2011)
With the growth of the computers
with the district, it has made it difficulty for the technology staff to
support the staff quickly in troubleshooting and maintenance of computers. Currently their plan is to have one
technology person to one hundred computers. This is overwhelming when two to three campuses are sharing
one technology staff member. (Bryan ISD, 2011)
2. How did the goals provide the measurable outcomes for
future improvement?
By using professional development
for the teachers in troubleshooting and management of computers within the
classroom. There are measurable
goals to improve response time after the training of the teachers is
completed. It is the hope that the
call ticket response time will decrease by 30% because the minor problems that
teachers call the technology support services unit for will be removed since
teachers will be able to correct them on their own.
Currently with the district plan
is “providing instructional support for teachers and students as the utilize
technology resources provided by the district, expenses for this is already
within the budget for existing staff.
Analyzing the district STaR chart, additional staff development will be
defined to increase technology skills being applied with the classroom.
The training for the design of
the teacher website will improve teacher, student and parent
communication. Productivity will
increase because the teacher can learn how to post homework assignments and
upcoming events on the website.
3. How did the strategies defined meet the proposed
objectives?
Currently the goals I have established within my current
plan will improve the productivity of the teachers and the technology support
staff. When training is completed
the teachers and staff will be able to focus more on the implementation of
technology application within their classes. Furnishing time to assist the teachers in setting up their
websites and learning how to maintain them will also help them to model for the
students the use of technology in communication.
Works Cited
Bryan ISD. (2011). Bryan Independent School District
Technology Plan 2011-2014. Bryan ISD, Technology Service Center. bryan: BISD.
ISTE NETs. (2012). Retrieved March 31, 2012, from
International Society for Technology In Education:
http://www.iste.org/standards.aspx
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?
2.
How did the goals provide the measurable
outcomes for future improvement?
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,.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)