Tech Plan Eval HelmsRankineScott

7/31/2019 Tech Plan Eval HelmsRankineScott

1/11

Georgia Southern UniversityMEd - FRIT 8132: Administration of Technology Resources

Spring 2012 Instructor: Dr. C. Hodges

Topic: Technology Plan Evaluation Date: 04/02/2012

Group: Mitzi Helms, Fabrian Rankine, Jesse Scott

Evaluation:

Gwinnett County Public Schools

Technology Plan

Part A: Evaluation Rubric

Components 0 1 2 3

Goals and realisticstrategy for usingtelecommunicationsand informationtechnology

Goals are absent,are notmeasurable, areincomplete, aredifficult tounderstand, or aresubmitted late.

Goals are absentor seem to beonly equipmentbased, are notmeasurable, areincomplete, aredifficult tounderstand, oraresubmitted late.

Goals are mostlyequipment basedand loosely linkedto improvementplans, and aresubmitted ontime.

Goals are broad,comprehensiveand realistic inaddressingteaching andlearning needs.Goals clearlyanswer thequestions: Who?What? By when?By how much?According towhich

instrument?Submitted ontime.

Professionaldevelopmentstrategy

Staff developmentis absent orprovides noinformation oncurrent andneededtechnologycompetencies orhow the plan will

help staff achievethe neededcompetencies.Submitted late.

Staff developmentis absent orprovides onlyminimalinformation oncurrent andneededtechnologycompetencies

or how the planwill help staffachieve theneededcompetencies.Submitted late

Provides only ageneral overviewof current &neededtechnologycompetencies.Describes afew strategiesand

recommendationsfor incentives andresources.Submitted ontime.

Clearly describescurrent andneededtechnologycompetencies.Describes howplan will taketeachers andother staff from

presentlevel oftechnologycompetency andknowledgeto the level ofskill required inthe plan.Describes staff


2/11





developmentstrategies andrecommendations for incentivesand professionaldevelopmentresources.Submitted ontime.

Assessment oftelecommunicationservices, hardware,software, and otherservices needed

A needsassessment is notprovided.

NeedsAssessment isabsent,incomplete or issubmitted late.

Technology hasbeenassessed andanalyzed, butmay not includesummariesof informationfrom allelements in thetechnologysurveys.Submitted ontime.

Assessment iscomprehensiveand containsdetailedinformation fromhardwareresources,technologyneedsassessment andMaturityModelBenchmarksurveys;

identifies use bystudents andstaff, and trainingreceived anddesired.Submitted ontime.

Budget resources Projects, budgets,ortimelines missing;provides noinformation on

project, budgets,or timelines; ornotsubmitted on time.

Projects, budgets,ortimelines missing;provides vague orlittle

information onproject,budgets, ortimelines;projects appearnotrelevant to plangoals;budget estimates

Provides most,but not all, ofthe project,timelines, andbudget estimate

information.Appears to begenerallyconsistent withplan goals.Submitted ontime.

Provides aprioritized list ofmajor tech planprojects, tasksand timelines.

Provides budgetsummaryestimate ofcapital expenses(hardware,software,facilities,infrastructure,staff


3/11





appearincongruent withplan orunrealistic; or notsubmitted ontime.

development,tech support,etc.) Identifiespossiblealternativefundingresources.Projects,timelines, andbudgets are

realistic andconsistent withplan goals andobjectives.Submitted ontime.

Ongoing evaluationprocess

No formalevaluation isdescribed.

An evaluationprocess isdescribed, butlacks detail andcomprehensiveness. It does notrefer to learning

outcomes.

An evaluationprocess andinstrument isdescribed indetail, but lackscompletecomprehensivene

ss. The link togoals andobjectives is notapparent.

An evaluationprocess andinstrument aredescribed indetail, and iscomprehensivein nature.

Assessment istimely, and tiedto the objectives.

Rubric References:

Allen, P. Technology planning analysis rubric. Retrieved from

https://goml.view.usg.edu/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/Hodges_M

odule04/TPAR1.pdf

Kimball, C., & Sibley, P. Technology planning analysis rubric. Retrieved from

http://course1.winona.edu/shatfield/air/technology planning analysis.pdf


4/11





Part B: Evaluation Overview

Introduction

Gwinnett County Public Schools published a three-year technology plan in 2009.

In 2012, this plan is currently in active use, and replaces a previous plan that was

published in 2006. Starting with a mission statement and vision that closely parallels the

mission and vision for the Gwinnett County Public School system, the technology plan

seeks to pursue excellence in academic knowledge, skills, and behavior for each

student, and continues with a detailed plan that outlines how the county plans to utilize

technology to achieve that vision. This plan is strong in meeting the highest

requirements in several components of the above technology plan evaluation rubric, but

there are a few areas that can still be improved upon.

Component Area Evaluations

Goals and realistic strategy for using telecommunications and information

technology

The goals of the Gwinnett County Public School (GCPS) System 2009 2012

Technology Plan are listed on pages 4 and 5 of the plan. These goals are measurable,

realistic, comprehensive in nature, and definitely attainable. They are accompanied by

benchmarks, that serve as tangible indicators of successful progress toward goal

completion. Further, the goals are continuously monitored by the on-going evaluation of


5/11





the Technology Plan. Additionally, budget provisions are made for the purchasing of

equipment, or for facilitating training, as may be required. Finally, a list of persons

responsible for the implementation of each strategy is included. Thus, this area of the

GCPS 2009 - 2012 Technology Plan earns a 3, on the Helms-Rankine-Scott Scale.

Professional development strategy

According to the GCPS 2009 - 2012 Technology Plan, p. 37, The Department of

Professional Learning exists to serve our customers by providing the processes,

products and services needed for high quality professional learning that leads to desired

results. This serves to prove that the GCPS System takes Professional Development,

seriously, not just in words, but also, in deeds, with the provision of the Department of

Professional Development. This area of the GCPS 2009 - 2012 Technology Plan, also,

earns a 3, on the Helms-Rankine-Scott Scale.

Assessment of telecommunication services, hardware, software, and other

services needed

In the area of assessing service and hardware needs, as well as in the area of

providing technical support in these areas, there could exist a more comprehensive plan

for services available to support technology use (network, computer, and software

support). To be more comprehensive, the GCPS Technology plan will need to state the


6/11





requirements for services that are readily available. More detailed plans for technology

support will also have to be provided. To accomplish this, a detailed equipment

analysis would have to be conducted and/or staff surveys providing this information

would have to be administered. In this area, the GCPS Technology Plan scored a two

out of a possible three points on the rubric.

Budget resources

For each strategy in the GCPS Technology Plan, a funding source and a budget

figure are provided. Also, each time a technology purchase is present in the budget, the

type of technology is specified. A key benchmark within the plan notes that technology

budget requests will reflect the needs of system schools based on system data. Web

resources and county meetings are listed as vehicles for communicating budget

allocation toward technology, and as vehicles for communicating budget needs.

Stipulations for allocation of funds toward technology are outlined, as are the chain-of-

command for seeking funding. There is also a clear section that outlines funding limits,

and who must be contacted to approve funding at various stages based on expense.

Throughout each stage of the plan, there is a section in which a schedule is provided for

appropriating funding for specific technology projects. The goals are realistic and

attainable for this county, and many of the goals have already been met. As such, this


7/11





area of the GCPS 2009 - 2012 Technology Plan earns a 3 on the Helms-Rankine-Scott

Scale.

Ongoing evaluation process

For each strategy and benchmark within the technology plan, a section is

provided that explains two to three ways in which those strategies and benchmarks will

be evaluated. Evaluation sections within the plan acknowledge how success will be

recognized along a specific timeline, and include several methods for judging success.

Evaluation methods include surveys to be administered to various stakeholders such as

principals, teachers, students, and parents. The methods also include use of usage

analysis data within various software, as well as simply noting whether certain tasks

have been achieved by certain calendar dates. Evaluation sections are provided to align

with each objective in the plan, and these evaluation methods are comprehensive and

detailed. Finally, the Technology Plan, according to the GCPS, is evaluated annually.

This area of the GCPS 2009 - 2012 Technology Plan earns a 3 on the Helms-Rankine-

Scott Scale.

Assessment Summary

Overall, Gwinnett Countys Technology Plan was well written and organized. As

a whole, the plan scores a 2.8 on a scale of 3. When comparing the plan to the Helms-

Rankine-Scott Scale, these areas scored a 3 (complete) and required no modifications:


8/11





Goals and Realistic Strategy

Professional Development

Budget Resources

Ongoing Evaluation

The following area scored 2 (adequate) on the Helms-Rankine-Scott Scale, and

requires moderate modification:

Assessment of Services and Technical Support

In this area, the GCPS Technology Plan scored a two out of a possible three

points on the rubric. In the area of technical support, providing a clear and

comprehensive plan for services available is needed to support technology use

(network, computer, and software support), which is necessary for a strong technology

plan. The Gwinnett County Technology Plan lacks the comprehensive part of the plan.

The change that needs to be made in the Technology Plan is to state the requirements

for services that are readily available and detailed plans for technology support. The

resources required for this would be a detailed equipment analysis and/or staff surveys

providing this information.


9/11





Other Areas for Improvement:

In addition to above, the following modifications could be made to improve the

technology plan:

Identify Contributors and Stakeholders

Gwinnett Countys technology plan does identify the contributors and the

stakeholders in the plan, just not in a well-organized manner. Because of this, Gwinnett

County only scored a two on the Helms-Rankine-Scott scale. There is not a separate

section for this with detailed descriptions of each group. The reader must search the

entire Technology Plan in order to find this information. To improve the plan,

contributors and stakeholders should be identified, and their jobs and contributions to

the development of the technology plan should also be stated. This change would help

county employees know who made the recommendations and what decisions were

made. The resources used for this component would be to review other school

systems technology plans for comparable examples of stakeholder groups.

Improve Mission Statement

The Gwinnett County Technology Department does not have a detailed mission

statement, but rather repeats the mission statement of the school system. To improve

the technology plan, the technology department needs to develop a specific mission


10/11





statement which would include why and how the technology mission is to be

accomplished. This would be beneficial because this plan directs Gwinnett Countys

overall goals for its technology use.

Standards

An omission from the GCPS Technology Plan is that it does not provide any

standards by which to judge the technology goals. For each goal within the plan, the

appropriate standards should be noted, or at very least, the plan needs to include a

section with the National Technology Standards listed for students and educators.

Executive Summary

In comparing Gwinnett Countys Technology Plan to Dr. Paul Allens Rubric from

the University of Texas, the Executive Summary was absent. In order to gain a better

understanding of the countys technology situation, the reader must read the section

Instructional Technology Use. This section describes the technology each school has

within the system. In order to improve this score, a section entitled Executive Summary

would need to be added that would clearly outline the vision, mission, goals, objectives,

backgrounds, findings, issues, conclusions, and recommendations of the technology

plan for Gwinnett County.


11/11





References

Allen, P. Technology planning analysis rubric. Retrieved from

https://goml.view.usg.edu/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/Hodges_M

odule04/TPAR1.pdf

Gwinnett County Public Schools, Technology Department. (2009). Gwinnett countypublic

schools technology plan. Retrieved from website:http://gwinnett.k12.ga.us/gcps-imdweb01.nsf/pages/TechnologyPlan0~TechnologyPlan

Kimball, C., & Sibley, P. Technology planning analysis rubric. Retrieved from

http://course1.winona.edu/shatfield/air/technology planning analysis.pdf

Documents

Tech Plan Eval HelmsRankineScott