Scribd
Upload
1K views5 pages

Technology Planning Analysis Rubric: Executive

This technology plan from a large school district northwest of Atlanta received mixed ratings based on a rubric. While the vision and mission statements clearly defined goals and learning outcomes, the plan lacked specifics around identifying stakeholders, conclusions, recommendations, and staff development. Objectives and challenges facing implementation were not addressed. However, the plan provided clear descriptions of hardware, software, and standards. Acceptable use policies were also clearly articulated. Overall, the plan presented a comprehensive overview but was weak in strategic planning areas such as addressing challenges, next steps, and professional development.

Uploaded by

jansenpoovandrie
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views5 pages

Technology Planning Analysis Rubric: Executive

This technology plan from a large school district northwest of Atlanta received mixed ratings based on a rubric. While the vision and mission statements clearly defined goals and learning outcomes, the plan lacked specifics around identifying stakeholders, conclusions, recommendations, and staff development. Objectives and challenges facing implementation were not addressed. However, the plan provided clear descriptions of hardware, software, and standards. Acceptable use policies were also clearly articulated. Overall, the plan presented a comprehensive overview but was weak in strategic planning areas such as addressing challenges, next steps, and professional development.

Uploaded by

jansenpoovandrie
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Introduction

The technology plan we chose to evaluate comes from a large school district northwest of

Atlanta. The district has 114 schools and 7,465 teachers. The plan spans three years from

2009-2012. From our research, the plan does not appear to have been updated since its

inception on July 1, 2009. This plan is divided into two parts. There is a main document

and an appendix. The plan is very detailed and contains a large amount of research data.

The rubric we chose to use in evaluating the plan is the Technology Planning Analysis

rubric designed by Dr. Paul Allen. Because we are not employed by the district and have

only had contact with a single teacher from the district, we cannot be certain how actively

the plan is followed.

Technology Planning Analysis Rubric


Components Score Comments
Executive 2 The vision and mission statements together clearly define the
Summary
vision, mission, goals and objectives. However there are no
real conclusions or any recommendations. The plan tells us
what the writers see for the future of the district and what
objectives they hope to accomplish but nothing more
Identifies 1 The plan does not clearly delineate the stakeholders.
Contributors and
Stakeholder
Groups
Vision Statement 3 Vision statements are comprehensive and clearly delineate
who the users are and how technology will be used
Mission 3 The mission statements are comprehensive and give the
Statement
reader a clear view of the who the district is doing this for,
why they are doing, and what they will do to make it happen
Goals 3 The goals were broad, but some did not include for who,
what, or by when. The goals focused on student and teacher
use of technologies. They also looked at how to
communicate with parents outside of school.
Objectives 1 There were no clear objectives in the plan.
3 The assessments were clearly labeled with the goals for the
Needs
Assessment system. The assessments gave detail in what types of
hardware needed for each goal. The system included
surveys given to parents, students and teachers over the past
years to help form the goals for the systems.
General Issues 3 General issues were addressed with the tables and charts
included in the section. Staff development, tech support,
technology standards were addressed. It also covered adding
new technology with old technology and included English
proficiency.
This plan does not identify challenges that face the system
Conclusions and 1 nor does it make any recommendation on its plan to meet the
Recommendation
s challenges.

Acceptable Use 3 The Acceptable user policy (AUP) is fully and thoroughly
Policy
articulated with regards to proper use of the technology.

Technology and 3 These technology statements are articulated in the in section


Learning
Statement 2, labeled usage data.
Technology 3 The plan provides clear description of the hardware and
Standards,
Requirements, software in the county. This is listed in the section 2 current
and Models for realities, access technology, and data sources.
Technology and
Learning
Staff 1 The plan lacks a clear plan for staff development as it
Development
pertains to technology use. Most of the section speaks to
staff development as it pertains to instructional practices.
There is one small mention of technology, almost as an
afterthought.
Technical Support 2 The plan does not address issues related to technical support.
With further searching, we noticed the appendices did
address some procedures with regards to technical support.
Projects, Budgets, 2 Projects and the budget for said projects are listed in the
and Timelines
appendix. However, there are no timelines for the projects.
The projects listed seem to fall in line with the goals outlined
in the main part of the plan
Clarity of Writing 3 The writing is clear and concise.

Created by Dr. Paul Allen at the University of Texas

Identifies Contributors and Stakeholder Groups


The school system involves all stakeholders through engaging them in the school
improvement technology plans. The school improvement questionnaire is completed by
parents, students, and teachers with regards to technology use. However these are generic
attempts to inform all stakeholders of the schools programs, and they do not succinctly
state how parents or other stakeholders are involved in developing or informing the
direction of this plan. Since this plan does not clearly list the stakeholders, it receives a
score of 1. To receive a score of 3, the plan must list the membership and all groups must
be equitably represented.
Vision and Mission Statements

Based on the rubric this vision/mission statement scores a 3. It clearly delineates learning
outcomes and has a comprehensive (12 point) list of outcomes that include students,
teachers, and administration. The mission and vision statements in this plan are good
examples of what mission and vision statements should be because they are thorough and
encompass all stakeholders. They are also realistic. There is nothing in either statement
that is not realistic.
Conclusions and Recommendations:

Given the fact that this is a plan spanning three years and the evolving nature of
technology, this plan needed to address challenges that would possibly be encountered.
However, this was lacking, and it is for this reason this component of the plan was given
a score of 1. The GAP Analysis observation revealed that student engagement in
technology use for learning was lacking. The committee indicated that although
technology resources were often available and were often used in the classroom, they
were not necessarily used by students. This is a challenge that the plan needed to address.
Problem areas were highlighted, but follow up plans to remediate these weaknesses were
not in the detailed plans.

Acceptable Use Policy


Guidelines for use of internet, emails, blogs, and other usages are clearly laid out. The
important consent forms are hyperlinked in the AUP document. A strong AUP is an
integral component to successful implementation of technology in schools, and this
school system has a very concise and clear policy. I like how the document includes the
definition of different technology terms, so any infringement cannot be attributed to “I
didn’t know what that meant…” It is for these reasons, this component gets a 3. The AUP
is found in the appendices. Unlike other plans I looked at, this school system has
presented the appendices in a separate document. If the public wants to view the AUP, it
would not be found within the technology plan, which I think is not very conducive to
one click access of important documents.

Technology and Learning Statement:

The technology statements are clear and detailed. They are included in the description of
the different technologies currently used in the learning environment. It also list ways
these technologies will be utilized to achieve instructional outcomes. One such
technology the system uses is Skills Tutor, which is available to middle and high schools
within the system. It is a web based program that provides students with access to
prescriptive skill and thinking tutorial lessons aligned to the GPS (Georgia Performance
Standards). The plan details the usage levels with schools in the system.

Technology Standards, Requirements, and Models for Technology and Learning


The component of the plan is very detailed. In section 2, the plan states that there are
53,000 + workstations and 13,000 + printers. The plan goes on to describe the networking
capability. This section is very specific and detailed.
Professional Development

Based on the rubric the staff development section scores a one. This score is based on
two observations. First, there is no mention of current and needed technology
competencies. The only allusion to staff development as it pertains to technology is to say
that all courses will adhere to the same requirements as those that teach on instructional
practices. If that is the case, then staff development will be lacking for technology
integration as the district offers few in-services and some outside learning opportunities
for training on instructional practices but no real on-going training. Second, there is no
mention of what types of technology training are and will be available. The only training
that is alluded to is training in instructional practices and techniques. It may be that the
writers thought that one would assume that technology training would fall under that
umbrella. However, that is not the case.

Overall, from the brevity and lack of depth it seemed that the creators of this plan did this
section as an afterthought. There is no evidence of any real attention being given to this
subject.

Technical Support
This component is not clearly articulated. The plan does not adequately outline
expectations with regards to support and it for this reason; this component received a
score of 2. The appendices do have procedures for handling logistics of acquiring and
removing outdated technology. The plan needs to have a clear section addressing this
component. One should not have to hunt for this component.

Clarity of Writing

This plan is easy to understand and has no writing convention errors. All acronyms are
explained. Report is framed in non technical language that is easily understood by
everyone. The graphs and tables aids with making the document more reader friendly.

Conclusion:
This plan was adequate in that it listed some of the essential aspects, like the vision,
goals, and mission statements. However, it is also weak in areas of professional
development and technical support. This plan has many extraneous details that would be
more appropriate for a school improvement plan than a technology plan. One such
extraneous detail is found in the plans provision of the analysis of the gaps review makes
interesting reading, but it does not provide an action point for future plans. Some sections
like the usage provides data that would really be more appropriate for an evaluation
document, not a technology plan. With tweaking some of the deficient and weak areas
this would be a great plan worthy of implementing in a great school system.

You might also like