Technology Plan Update

Running Head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN UPDATE 1

Technology Plan UpdatePart 1 - NarrativeKelly Meeks, Hiroko Turner, Rebecca WestDr. Charles HodgesFRIT 8132Spring 2013

Georgia Southern University

April 28, 2013

Table of contentsIntroductionProfile of Richmond County School System ..3Overview of Strengths and Weaknesses .....4Outlines of Changes ........71. Program Integration .72. Curriculum Integration 83. Evaluation ...94. Standards ...105. Maintenance/Support 116. School Pilot Projects/Educational Research 137. Modern Classroom Configurations ..158. Facilities Issues .179. Software Agreement .1810. Gifts and Disposal ..1911. Staff Development ..20References ....22Appendix ..24Introduction

Profile of Richmond County School System

The Richmond County is located in Augusta, Georgia. The county is described as follows.

Richmond County School System has 56 schools, which house 2014 classrooms. Within these schools the school system maintains 135 computer labs for teacher and student access. Our goal is to provide six modern computers in each classroom (five student and one teacher workstations). Our computer lab goal is 30 computers per lab. Of our 2014 classroom, we currently have 64% of classrooms with one or two modern computers and 29% of these classrooms with three or more computers. (Richmond County Three-Year Technology Plan. p.5, 2011)In April 2013, there are 60 public schools: 35 elementary schools, 10 middle schools, and 8 high schools. In addition, there are 4 magnet schools, and 3 special schools such as alternative education center. In 2013 the SACS evaluation refers to there are some schools which have and have not, which is noticed as the existing gaps between the highly equipped schools and the poorly equipped schools. The district states in its mission and vision statements that the role of technology is vital to meet the standards in 21st century by providing interactive computer-based technologies and Internet resources to meet all childrens needs, regardless of race, economic status, or geographic location (p.3).

Overview of Strengths and Weaknesses

The Richmond County Three-Year Technology Plan, according to our evaluation, was very strong in the areas of Broad-Based Support, Needs Assessment, Mission and Vision, Goals and Objectives, Action Plan/Multi-year Planning, Funding Alternatives, and Copyright/Acceptable Use Policy. These areas were either thoroughly or well explained and received an acceptable rating through our evaluation rubric. The strengths in these areas are shown as below. Broad-Based Support: The accountable names of the person and the department are specified for each goal, strategy, and benchmark from pages 20 32 (Technology Plan Update). Needs Assessment: The methods how the countys needs are assessed are listed on page 4.

Mission and Vision: These are stated at the beginning of the plan, and are explained in relation to technology development (p.3)

Goals and Objectives: The goals are explained the details for the strategies and timelines, responsible departments, and assessment methods of the progress form page 20 to page 32.

Action Plan/Multiyear Planning and Funding: This technology Plan is made as a three-year plan and standards and goals are specified for five different areas: Access to Technology (pp.20-24), Instructional Uses of Technology/Professional Development Strategies (pp.25 26), Administrative Uses of Technology (pp.27-28), Parent/Community Uses of Technology (pp.29-30), and System Readiness for Technology (pp.31-32). The use of chart helps clarify the outlines for each action strategy and it is easily understood. The funding sources and amount of the funding are also specified, which makes the strategies more realistic and practical.

Copyright/Acceptable use Policy: Acceptable Use Policy was found in Appendix. A copyright document is listed in the countys web site. In the Technology Plan Update this has been copies and added in the Appendix A along with Acceptable use of policy (pp. 44 45).The following are the 11 areas in which weaknesses were identified. A brief description of such weaknesses is shown for each area below. Program Integration: The existing technology plan reports the connections of the technology plan with numerous programs (Technology Plan Update, p. 6) throughout the schools for different levels. The names of the purchased programs are listed in the Technology Plan Update (p.40). Curriculum Integration: According to our evaluation, the current technology plan is in need of examples of how students would be using technology to enhance their learning experiences. The curriculum integration and program integration are added in the same section (p.40). Evaluation: In this area, an additional evaluation process and timeline for the Technology Plan evaluation and teacher/administrator/staff evaluation are needed. These are separately added to the Technology Pan Update. (p. 37 and p.44). Standards: A set of major equipment standards is not present in the existing technology plan. The descriptions of equipment standards of the major equipments have been added to the technology plan (p.18). Maintenance/Support: The current maintenance support issues are well described in the Access to Technology Gap Analysis (p.11) These are based on survey though the media specialist in schools, and provide sound reasons. In the Technology Plan Update, the procedures are copied from the Media Specialist handbook from Richmond County, and a paragraph describing the suggestions has been added just below the procedures (Technology Plan Update. P.22). School Pilot Projects/Research Education: For this area, the Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT) program has been selected based on the countys major budget problems and the policies and the overview has been added (p.15) and the procedures are explained in the Appendix D (pp. 56 - 58). Modern Classroom Configurations: A guideline of the modern classroom configuration aligned with the 21st Century standards and construction standards is needed to ensure the quality of instructions. This has been copied and added (p.18). Facilities Issues: The facility and infrastructural issues in the county are spread in the Realities and Gaps. The list of major facilities issues has been mentioned separately (p.21). Software Agreements: The existing plan does not contain any software agreements, so one will be added (p. 38). Gifts and Disposals: There is not a policy for how gifts and disposals are to be handled in the plan. The policy is located in the district media handbook and has been inserted into the technology plan (p.41). Staff Development: The guidelines and details are not specified in the existing technology plan. These guidelines are added (p.42).In addition to the eleven areas, the following changes are also made based on the recommendations in the Technology Plan Evaluation. A table of technology inventory of the county is added as Table 2 (p.19) to the Equipment Standards to follow the recommendation made in the Technology Plan Evaluation.

A sample glossary of technology terms is added as Appendix F (p. 61) to follow the recommendation made in the Technology Evaluation Plan.

Research studies that are 5 years older such as (Valdez et al, 1999) on page 4, (Darling Hammond, 1998; Diaz Maggioli, 2004; Sparks, 2002) on page16, and (Kosakowski, 1998) on page 35, are deleted.Outlines of ChangesEleven sections are selected and changed in the Technology Plan Update. The major changes are explained for the problems seen in the original technology plan, the descriptions and reasons, and resulting improvements form the changes. 1.Program IntegrationProblems seen in the Richmond County Technology Plan. The current Richmond County three-year technology plan names some purchased programs this topic (p.6). The plan should also contain their plans to integrate technology into programs sponsored or held by the school system such as: distance learning for home-schooled or hospital homebound students; adult learning; and student tutoring. The plan should also contain accountability measures for how the technology plan will be evaluated for success. Changes and reasons. The example of accountability measures from Yarmouth School Department in Maine, examples of technology integration in various programs, and the list of names of the purchase programs are added (Technology Plan Update, p.40). These changes are necessary because the school system must have ways to hold the stakeholders accountable for upholding the technology plan. These changes signify the various programs that could benefit through the use of technology. Resulting improvements. The student scores and activity on the above programs will allow the district to evaluate how the plan is working and changes that may need to be made. The evaluation of these accountability measures can be reviewed on a regular basis, but changes, if any, can be applied at the end of the technology plan three-year term. Reviewing the plan and student progress will allow the school district to build a technology plan that will work efficiently and effectively for its students.2. Curriculum Integration

Problems Seen in the Richmond County Technology Plan. The current Richmond County Technology Plan currently discusses the technology available to their students in elementary, middle, and high schools (pp.13-14). Administrative uses (pp.14-15) and parent/community uses (p.15) of technology are also discussed. However, the current plan should discuss specifically how technology would impact the learning and achievement of their students (p.8).Changes and reasons. Specific uses of technology by students to enhance their learning experience are added to the existing Richmond County technology plan (p. on Technology Plan Update). In order for students to become efficient employees in the work force productive citizens, and effective leaders of tomorrow, which is stated as the District Mission and Vision, they must develop the skills to be mastered in the Technology Plan.Resulting improvements. These changes in the plan allow for student growth inside the classroom and provide students with the skills needed to succeed outside the classroom as well. These skills are needed to produce productive citizens in our society (NETS for Student, 2007, Standards 2 and 4). The growth in these skills will result in an increase in student test scores on standardized tests and in student progress in the classroom.3. Evaluation

Problems seen in the Richmond County Technology Plan. The ongoing evaluation process as stated in section II under Goals and Benchmarks on pages 20-32. The evaluation methods are analyzed in Table C (Appendices). All areas have multiple evaluation methods with timelines. The types of evaluations range from qualitative to such quantitative methods. The timelines range from August through May, which covers the entire school year. Based on the data the evaluation is thorough and accountable; however, the evaluation of the progress of the entire Technology Plan is not mentioned. Changes and reasons. The evaluation plan to measure the success of the Technology Plan itself is added along with the timelines (p.37) and the evaluation plan to measure the success of the teacher/administrator/staff evaluation is added (p.44). Since the plan covers three years, the overall evaluation is recommended to take place once each year such as two formative evaluations for the first two years and one summative in the third year. Any programs or plans without evaluating themselves are missing the important part. As all the components in the Technology Plan are evaluated in each section, the Technology Plan itself needs to be evaluated for the effectiveness, accuracy, evaluation accountability, and propriety (The Program Evaluation Standards). This evaluation needs to be reported to all stakeholders in a timely manner for opinions and suggestions for improvements. Thus the schedule of this metaevaluation is added with timelines and evaluation methods along with the existing chart. To evaluate how well the county is maintaining and/or working toward their goals, all students, teachers, and administrators will take a survey at the end of each year to evaluate their thoughts of the technology within their school and/or system. The technology department along with members of the Board of Education will meet every 6 months to examine a matrix to see how the system is doing and if goals stated in the technology plan are being reached. The matrix will be evaluated based on feedback from schools within the system.

Resulting improvements. With formative evaluations and summative evaluation implemented and shared with all stakeholders, the countys Technology Plan for 2014 1016 is expected to be more practical, resourceful and effective. The county will gain more support and participation from the stakeholders since they are involved in the process of analyzing, evaluating, and revising the Technology Plan. This would promote the atmosphere of the Richmond County community as the county open for all parents, care-givers, and people who support the visions of 21st Century learners in Richmond County through technology uses. 4. Standards

Problems seen in the Richmond County Technology Plan. There are no documents related to this in the Technology Plan. A few sentences referring to a variety of equipment models and Operating Systems are seen on page 4 calling this an assortment of computer models and software packages (p.4) and the county explains, this lack of standardization leads to many issues(p.5). The types of equipment the county has are also mentioned in 242 digital cameras, 214 movie cameras, 1,092 interactive white boards. 193 interactive slates, 10,049 student response devices, and 1,275 digital projectors(p.12). The specific model numbers are not indicated in the Technology Plan.

Changes and reasons. It is meaningful to have the equipment standards for the following reason. When computer stops working, the school could make a plan to either repair the part that is malfunctioning or replace the whole computer with new one and discard the old computer. Researching the price for the part takes time as does detecting the part that is malfunctioning. By having the list of standards equipment posted in the plan and update them on a regular basis, the schools would understand the decisions made by the county.

Resulting improvements. The chart for the recommended desktop computer standards from Unified School District is added to the Technology Plan. With these standards, the county will be able to plan a purchase for the suitable computers and by comparing the costs for a part replacement and a whole replacement, the schools are able to use the limited budget more wisely by not spending money for any parts that are Beyond Economical Repair (BER). According to Unified School District, DELL Optiplex 270 made in 2003 would value roughly about $50.00. The replacement of any parts that costs more than $50.00 would not worth of inventing; therefore, the school should discard the computer. As a result, the equipment standards help the school and county make their wise choices within the limited budget (Unified School District. 2013). Once the schools decide that a repair request is needed, the forms are relatively quickly filled in with the equipment specifications are posted. The county needs to update these standards as the new models are purchased.

5. Maintenance/Support Problems seen in the Richmond County Technology Plan. The current maintenance/Support data are used to describe the gaps in the Technology Plan (p.10-11). The procedures of maintenance/support system are not described. The county acknowledged the current maintenance status in The total number of service orders tracked in the TigerPaw management system has been consistently increasing throughout the years (p.12 ) Service requests also become increasingly complex each year(p.12), and the number of technicians available to address these issues has decreased (p.12). The outstanding issue is acknowledged in The excessive response time for service due to the lack of sufficient numbers of technicians is evidence of this gap (p.12); however, no suggestions are mentioned in the paragraph.Changes and reasons. Two paragraphs are added in the Technology Plan Update (p.: a summary paragraph of the current maintenance/support procedures and a paragraph of suggestions to solve the maintenance/support issues. These are summarized from the Repair of Computers (Media Specialists Handbook, 2012, P. 25 ). The importance of the technology plan is to realize the current situations and provide the future directions to solve those issues and progress forward. Once the issue is found, it is the responsibility for the county to have a plan in place. The stakeholders need to know what next steps will be taken by the county. Also to suffice the needs for stakeholders who are not aware of the current maintenance procedures, inserting a paragraph of procedures from the Repair Request is recommended.

Resulting improvements. With explanations of the procedures and the suggestion regarding the maintenance/support issue clearly stated, the stakeholders would understand the countys positive efforts toward the improvement. The reasons based on the facts are convincing and would solicit more participation into the BYOT program from the parents and students in the county. This would make the technology plan more realistic and focused on problem-solving. It is expected the more stakeholders participate, the more inputs would be given when the results from the BYOT program were shared among them in three years. This would promote the countys community to positive and supportive atmosphere. 6. School Pilot Projects/Educational Research Problems seen in the Richmond County Technology Plan. There is a section referring to a pilot program on page 15. The county implemented pilot program for teacher evaluations through the use of the eWalk application and iPads. The eWalk/iPad technology allows administrators to perform teacher evaluations, instantly upload those evaluations into a database, and email that feedback to the teacher. The county explains the benefit is a great reduction in the time spent performing evaluations and paperwork (p.15).

Changes and reasons. Based on the countys major concern of the routine maintenance of hardware and software (p.12) and the problem of a gap between the number of qualified technicians to support the systems 58 schools, the Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT) program piloted at Carroll and Forsyth counties in Georgia and Seneca Valley School district Pennsylvania has been placed instead of the existing pilot project. The county explains the current problem is the number of service orders are consistently increasing and getting more complex each year; however, the qualified technicians are decreased (p.12). The county also explains it is hard to maintain the standardized equipment models because of the rapid advancement of technology (p.4). These problems are not specific to the county. The strict economy affects most of the counties and they are moving toward the BYOT programs to alleviate some of the budget constraints that schools are feeling in regards to providing technology. The educational benefits of the BYOT on the students and the teachers and the IT department have been research-proved.

Nelson states most districts move toward the BYOT because of the funding reasons. True 1:1 programs in which the school provides a continual stream of technology for every student can simply be unsustainable and unmanageable. Another cost incentive that is mentioned is that it takes pressure off the tech support structure as students are responsible for their own devices. (Nelson, 2012, p.15)

There are also mentioned some concerns about the BYOT leading to less support for public education in the future and equity issues for students. (p.15) However, most districts are reported to be successful in trying to turn these negatives into strengths to teach students their own responsibilities and the ownerships of devices and technology (p.15). Most districts start the BYOT program as a pilot project to test some volunteering teachers in the schools. The BOYT program is highly recommended for Richmond County to include in the Technology Plan.

Resulting improvements. With the BYOT program implemented in the county, the budget concern will be improved and the lack of certified technologists will be mediated as the number of county-bought devices would not increase. Some students who do not have their own devices would still use county-provided devices, for which the county will be responsible to maintain. The Technology department still needs to provide technology services to all 58 schools to ensure the equity of education for all students regardless of their economic status. Sangani predicts as follows.

Around 60-70 per cent of our students are coming to school with their own smart technology, so were looking at 25 to 40 per cent. In two or three years, as prices are going, that adoption will be higher. So I think in the future, well probably only be looking at about 10 per cent of the students. (Student Smart technologies, 2013. p.44) With the BYOT program in place, the county would focus on providing the technology devices to those who do not own their own devices instead of all students. The current technology devices survey in the county predicts roughly 50 percent of students would agree to bring their own devices to school for educational use, which would save roughly $600,000 of SPLOST fund for FY 11-12. The current research from the schools that piloted the BYOD reports not just economical benefits but also educational benefits as well as not only do students learn the key 21st-century skills of collaboration and self-directed learning, but they also ace standardized tests that focus primarily on content. We learn is a win-win (Norris and Soloway, 2011). With the BYOT program in place, the county would also help students achieve digital citizenship (p.114) and meeting the 21st century technology standards by practicing their responsibility, respect to their own and others devices and information. 7. Modern Classroom ConfigurationsProblems seen in the Richmond County Technology Plan. The Technology Plan does not spend a page to illustrate modern classroom configurations; however, they are mentioned in II-a. Access to Technology/Data Sources (p.5). New construction standards are being revised on an on-going basis to maintain their currency regarding technology needs of all types (p.5).The needs of the physical features of the classroom to meet the 21st century standards are recognized by the county. The county states equipping the classroom with new technology devices is not enough to meet the standards. It requires some constructional changes of the infrastructures.

Changes and reasons. In order for the goals to be more convincing and appropriate, the modern classroom configurations approved by the standards from the accredited institutions are necessary. Both illustrations and narratives of modern classroom configurations may help the stakeholders understand how the renovations are designed to meet the 21st century needs. The devices of new technology are purchased and the trainings were given for teachers and administrators every year. The problems that Richmond County is facing are the building structures that were not ready for implementing these devices. As is seen in the district mission and vision, it is an issue of equity that the county makes sure to provide the quality of technology to all students in the county regardless of race, economic status, or geographic location, and school differences. Therefore, the Technology Plan should have the visions of modern classroom in 21st century.

Resulting improvements. The guidelines for a model classroom from Virginia Department of Education (2008) and a structural design from Centennial School District (2009) are added to the Technology Plan. With these provided, the county will be able to convince the stakeholders understand the gaps between the realities and goals. The stakeholders will better support the reasons for the renovations and budget plans. In Richmond County some schools were built in 1960s and 1970s. Those buildings need to be renovated to meet the 21st century technology expectations. As the technology advances every day, more schools are to be renovated. The questions how renovations would be done, how the budgets are allocated, and how long the whole renovation would take would be answered based on the modern classroom configurations posted in the Technology Plan. This would prevent future confusion and conflicts by keeping information and guidelines officially open to the stakeholders.8. Facilities Issues

Problems seen in the Richmond County Technology Plan. The facilities issues are optimistically summarized as New construction standards being revised on an on-going basis to maintain their currency regarding technology needs of all types (p.5) and the county referred to some renovation projects that started in 2011(p.6) . Neither the details of the issues of aged facilities nor the guidelines to the facility issues are mentioned.

Changes and reasons. The list of appropriate codes for major facilities issues from Virginia Department of Education is added as a guideline. Since the county is described as having a huge gap between the most technology-equipped to the least technology-equipped schools, the details on the facilities issues for each school might be resourceful for the stakeholders, especially those advocating particular schools. The county is recommended to select the major facilities issues based on the current surveys. This can be combined with the modern classroom configurations or standards, and can have information of years the schools were built and some infrastructure issues reported by the school officials.

Resulting improvements. This list would become a sound ground to support current goals, budget allotments, and the stakeholders would clearly understand the directions of the three-Year Technology Plan by clarifying their questions and misconceptions. Along with the facilities issues the county currently reports, Modern Classroom Configurations to meet the 21st century demands, and the lists of specific school names with the specific facilities issues, these details would be even more satisfying the stakeholders who advocate the specific schools. The reports on the current facilities issues would provide the facts that the county has been aware of the problems and has planned to ensure equity for all schools within the available budgets, and this could be appealing to additional funds from the interest groups and communities.

9. Software Agreement.

Problems seen in the Richmond County Technology Plan. In the Technology Plan are mentioned a number of software names in use such as SAT Prep software, Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) software,

Destination Math, Renaissance Places Accelerated Reader (p.6), e-Chalk (p.32) and the Parent Internet Viewer (PIV) through Global Scholar/Pinnacle (p.33) for Student Information System (p.5). The county states As we move to more data-driven system to support instructional best practices, a variety of programs are becoming available for system leaders, teachers, and administrators,(p.36) however, the software policy agreements are not specified in the Appendices.

Changes and reasons. A change is made to add a software agreement from Virginia Department of Education. As the county receives E-Rate and SPLOST funds for telecommunications and Internet access, it is the responsibility for the county to make sure all users follow the agreements for software and safely and ethically operate them for educational purposes only. The county fully realizes the importance of meeting the 21st century technology standards for students, teachers, and administrators, as is stated in the District Mission and Visions (p.3). Because some programs and telecommunications are funded by E-Rate program, it is the countys responsibility to provide the training on software user agreement. Also as modern technology advances rapidly, new devices such as iPads are purchased and used in schools. This would necessitate the countys firm establishment of software/apps agreements.

Resulting improvements. By stating the software agreement along with the Acceptable User Policies, the county would be able to ensure the safe and responsible operations and more effectively monitor to prevent any misuses of them. For example, an issue was reported to the technology department that some teachers were using the router in the school building. Teachers brought the routers to use more than one computer from one access point in the classroom, trying to get more computers available for students to use. Having more computers in classroom is one of the goals for all counties. However, where the infrastructure is not ready, this would not be a good idea. Using a router is illegal. In this case, the teachers violated the software and telecommunications agreements, which they were not aware of. Clearly stated software agreements along with the licensing issues should be clearly stated in the Technology Plan, where the illegal uses from legal uses of software and telecommunication services are explained. As each administrator, teacher, and student becomes safe and ethical user, the benefits of those devices and software would be maximized and the county would continue to be funded by E-Rate program.10. Gifts and DisposalProblems Seen in the Richmond County Technology Plan. There is not a section concerning gifts and disposals in the current Richmond County Technology Plan. The gifts and dispositions are found in the Media Specialist Handbook in the county.Changes and reasons. Two samples of gifts/donation guidelines are adapted to the Technology Plan Update. The gifs and dispositions from the policy in the Richmond County Media Specialist handbook (p.15) define the quality of the gifts and procedures of dispositions. The gifts/donations/bequests are adapted from the Technology Plan of Ogden School District (p.65). These have been incorporated into the Technology Plan Update (p.41)These changes are made because the school system must account for all monies in the district budget. There must be clear guidelines for collecting gifts and donations as well. Resulting improvements. The guidelines and policy for the collection of gifts and monetary donations will be clearly outlined. This change will assist the accounting departments at the school and district levels will be able to balance the budget more effectively. These will also prevent the future conflicts and issue on handling gifts and donations in the future.11. Staff Development

Problems seen in the Richmond County Technology Plan. Page 35 establishes the ground of the importance of staff development by using research studies in 1986 1998. A variety of current staff development courses and workshops are mentioned such as eChalk, Outlook, Global Scholar/Pinnacle, and the Georgia School Board Association (GSBA) eBoard communication tool. The strategies how the staff development courses are currently scheduled are explained as in through an on-line learning management system (p.36). The county also describes the new venues for training opportunities to include on-line course offerings as the next steps for the county (p.36). The evaluation strategies are not mentioned.Changes and reasons. The outdated research studies are deleted and replaced by the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Teachers and Administrators (2009). The staff development plan has been adopted from Hall County Schools to provide the details of the strategies, benchmarks, and evaluation plan. The current research study on faculty with tablet PCs by Steinweg (2013) and the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Teachers and Administrators are added to support the needs of the staff development. The paragraphs describing a variety of trainings are preserved as an overview. The list of summer PLU from Hall County Schools is borrowed to show a variety courses available for summer.

Resulting improvements. With clearly stated standards on place, the staff development plan would be more focused and emphasized. Due to the recent tight budget, offering e-learning system would save some costs. The courses are also selected based on the needs assessment so that the county could use the time and facilities most effectively. Evaluations on the staff after the staff development workshop would provide feedback to the administrators and presenter of the development classes.

References

American Evaluation Association. Program Evaluation Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.eval.org/EvaluationDocuments/progeval.html

Centennial School District. (2009). Elementary renovations & building project. Retrieved from http://www.centennialsd.org/Page/114

Georgia Department of Education. Center for classroom innovation. http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/Technology-Services/Instructional-Technology/Pages/Center-for-Classroom-Innovation.aspx Hacienda La Puente. (2013). Unified school district equipment standards. Retrieved from http://doncswinweb3.hlpusd.k12.ca.us/index.php/district/departments/technology/technology_standards/

Nelson, D. (2012). BYOD. Internet@Schools, 19(5), 12-15.

Norris, C. (2011). BYOD as the catalyst to transform classroom culture. District Administration, 47(9), 114.

NETS for Students. International society for technology education. (2007) Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students/nets-student-standards-2007Ogden City School District. (n.d.). Ogden city schools technology plan. Retrieved from http://www.ogdensd.org/deptDocs/BoardPolicyManualweb.pdf Richmond County School System. (2011). Richmond County three-year technology plan. http://www.rcboe.org/www/rcboe/site/hosting/Technology/Richmond_Technology_Plan_2011_2014.pdf'

Richmond County School System. (2013). Richmond County media specialist handbook. http://www.rcboe.org/www/rcboe/site/hosting/Educational%20Media/MediaSpecialistHandbookRevised1213.pdf'Sangani, K. (2013). BYOD to the classroom. Engineering & Technology (17509637), 8(3), 42-45. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=d8a3e6a9-e9e9-4d18-b776-40ad98dfb85b%40sessionmgr110&hid=107

Seneca Valley School District. Responsible use of personal technology resources. Student Guidelines. Bring your own technology (BYOT) Retrieved from http://www.svsd.net/Page/8579 Steinweg, S., Williams, S., & Stapleton, J. (2010). Faculty use of tablet PCs in teacher education and K-12 Settings. Techtrends: Linking Research And Practice To Improve Learning, 54(3), 54-61.

Yarmouth School Department. (n.d.). Yarmouth school department. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/yarmouthschools.org/yarmouth-technology-plan/14-accountability-measures Appendix AEvaluation AnalysisDifferent UsesMethodsTimelines

Access to technology Annual technology inventory

Web site assessment

Hardware inventoryAnnual

Not specified

Annual

Instructional Use of Technology/Professional

Development StrategiesSoftware usage report

Classroom observation

Computer literacy competency Test/GHSGT

Media festival ParticipationAnnual

August April

Annual in the spring

Annual

Annual

Administrative Use of TechnologyStudents strengths and weaknesses

Teacher records

Wireless laptop usage

CRCT online assessmentFall & Spring

Not specified

Twice a month

August April each year

Parent/Community Use

Of TechnologyAnnual software inventory

Reviews of website

Observations

Number of Emails to the web creators

Number of field tripsAnnual

Each year

August - November

August - May

August - November

System Readiness

for TechnologyProfessional learning registration

Course syllabus reviewsMonthly

Annual

Please see the assignment description for a detailed rubric.

Max PossibleYou Earned

Narrative8

Technology Plan6

Pilot Projects4

Grammar/Spelling2

Total2020

Notes:

Comprehensive part 1!

I put some notes in your work on this part with Words comment feature. Thank you for making the revisions in the plan document easy to see.Good choice

I like how you organized each section with problems, changes, and results.

You have described an ambitious plan.

This is good! Many systems do not include any experimentation in their plans.

This gift policy is important because districts have had problems in the past with people donating/gifting old junk computers. The policy helps you have a reason to not accept the junk.