|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Research summary
With schools increasingly being held accountable for student achievement (Winter, 1998), parents, educators, and policymakers want to know if investments in technology are producing results. A school or district technology plan gives a voice to the vision of school leaders and the stakeholders they represent. Planning for technology has become more important now that many states and funding agents tie appropriations to the existence of a well-developed technology plan (Brush, 1998). In a comparison of technology planning in five southeastern states, more than 90% of the respondents indicated their districts had written technology plans. This survey also demonstrated the importance of technology leadership. Georgia and Tennessee reported that 99% and 100% of districts, respectively, had technology leaders. The lowest percentage of districts with designated technology leaders reported in this five-state survey was 69% (Brush, 1998). The technology plan document is the result of a technology planning cycle. Technology planning must become an integral part of annual budgeting, training, data gathering, and assessment of school performance (Cartwright, 1996; Department of Commerce, 1996; AEL, 2000). Results from implementation strategies spelled out in the plan create data that then feed the next round of planning and resource allocation. Although contrary to traditional budgeting practices in many school districts, a technology plan should span more than one year and have enough flexibility to accommodate new and emerging technologies, teaching strategies, and data from evaluations. The business world, where multi-year budgeting and planning are more common, looks upon technology as a tool to increase productivity. Business models can calculate an approximate "total cost of ownership" for technology initiatives through formulas that incorporate not only expenditures on hardware and software but on increases in productivity and efficiency. These business models are difficult to adapt to school settings, however, for uses and outcomes are quite different. A study by the International Data Corp. in 1997 (as reported in Consortium for School Networking, 1999) calculated the total cost of ownership for a school with 75 computers at $2,251 per year per computer, while costs for a comparably sized business were $4,517. Differences were attributed to less expensive hardware and software and less support personnel for schools, and a projected life span of five years for schools compared to three years for business. The factors that influence a district's cost calculations include support personnel, age and number of computers, number of platforms and software applications, as well as the type of network. No one formula will work for all schools. Planning can be made less daunting by gathering proper resources -- both human and otherwise -- and working toward well-established goals that focus on improved teaching and learning. Keeping the learning process in mind will guide discussions, help set benchmarks, and define desired outcomes. Technology planning is more than buying "wires and boxes." Mojkowski (1999) reports that flawed planning, which focuses on installing equipment and networks and gives little attention to teaching and learning, results in problems with evaluation. This can lead to decreasing support from stakeholders. If your technology plan is faltering, try using the Technology Planning Cycle to get it back on track (AEL, 2000). The Technology Planning CycleWhether embarking upon the initial stages of planning or revising an existing plan, the technology planning cycle, which is described below, can be broken down into four distinct phases with unique steps, players, and outcomes. This process is described in the Principal Connections CD-ROM (AEL, 2000) and consists of building the technology plan, obtaining resources, implementing the plan, and evaluating the plan. A well-designed technology plan can provide a high return on investment. The process is time-consuming and involves many players, but a strong document that begins with a vision that impacts student learning, outlines clearly stated goals, dictates roles for key players, describes funding needs and sources, and weaves evaluation into the cycle will contribute to effective integration and improved teaching and learning. Too, a successful plan serves as a model for future iterations that can incorporate new and emerging technologies and build upon a strong foundation. Building the technology plan. In the "Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan," Dr. Larry Anderson (1996a) and his students at Mississippi State University distinguish a difference between the word "plan" as a noun and "plan" as a verb. The plan is a document that describes a plan to be put into action. This document will be the road map that guides implementation of your school or district vision of educational technology.
Begin by gathering all key stakeholders in the planning process (Anderson, 1996a; Costello, 1997; Department of Commerce, 1996). Stakeholders at the school level include teachers, administrators, representatives of the professional staff, and students. Community and business leaders should also be included, for the success of the school system affects the economic viability of the community.
When appointing faculty members to a technology committee, remember this caveat from Geoghegan (Gilbert & Geoghegan, 1995). He notes that often these committees are made up of "early adopters" -- people who are ahead of the crowd in terms of skills -- and this can result in overlooking the needs and concerns of mainstream users.
Including community and business leaders in planning offers many benefits. These partners may leverage financial support, become powerful advocates for school projects (Department of Commerce, 1996), and communicate with the community at large (Mojkowski, 1999). Business leaders have insights into the world of work that can help shape the vision and guide outcomes expected of the district's graduates (Costello, 1997). Community and business leaders may also offer technical support and help translate the sometimes overwhelming technology jargon into educational goals.
At early meetings, create a mission statement that incorporates data from known infrastructure and technology use and sets goals toward the unified vision of the committee (Anderson, 1996a; Costello, 1997; AEL, 2000). This statement should clearly state goals and objectives for the plan (Department of Commerce, 1996). A realistic time line should designate personnel, desired actions, and projected outcomes (Anderson, 1996b, Department of Commerce, 1996).
Again, the focus of the technology plan should be teaching and learning (Rogers, 1999). Rogers (1999) describes three types of goals for technology use. Technology can be used as a tool to assist learning -- specifically to meet curricular requirements and content standards. Technology can also address new goals that could not be met any other way, such as creating simulations or supporting collaboration across temporal or geographic separation. These new goals may also include new learning environments and pedagogy. Technology can also assist teachers in various aspects of classroom management.
The technology plan document must also address the costs of purchasing equipment and software; developing a network infrastructure; constructing and/or retrofitting facilities; professional development sessions, materials, and substitute teachers; maintenance, technical support; and replacement of old, broken, or obsolete equipment and software (Anderson, 1996a; Coley, Cradler & Engel, 1997; Consortium for School Networking, 1999; Costello, 1997; Zeisler, 1997, 1999). Networking and hardware costs will be greatest at the beginning of an initiative (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997); however, costs will shift over time (Zeisler, 1997, 1999).
Many plans neglect hidden costs when planning for technology. Rooms may require retrofitting to accept network infrastructure, or they may become hotter with many computers running, which can impact HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) costs. New technology may require new classroom fixtures such as ergonomically adjusted desks and chairs, additional outlets, and storage for portable equipment. To avoid the safety hazard of cables on floors, you may need to raise flooring or purchase wireless hardware (Zeisler, 1997, 1999).
After the initial investments in hardware, software, and networking, expenses shift toward personnel and include professional development to address both basic skills and effective integration strategies, as well as maintenance and support staff (Consortium for School Networking, 1990), which can be the largest ongoing financial burden (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997). These shifts, combined with the need to collect impact data and revise the technology plan, require more than a one-time budget expenditure and should be incorporated into your annual budget. While a major technology effort may develop out of a one-time bond issue or major grant, the technology plan should address sustainability from the beginning (Costello, 1997; Department of Commerce, 1996; Panel on Educational Technology, 1997; Zeisler, 1999).
Obtaining resources. The planning document outlines required resources in terms of equipment, funding, and personnel. It may also visualize a new approach to teaching and learning within your school community and require educating or informing key personnel about the expected benefits of your plan.
School board members must understand that technology is not a one-time expenditure but requires a line item in each year's budget (AEL, 2000). Board members must report back to the community at large and, as Mojkowski (1999) points out, stakeholders outside the school expect education technology to significantly -- and quickly -- impact student test scores. A well-crafted technology plan should use information gathered during the needs assessment phase to outline expected returns and describe alternative indicators of success.
A strong technology plan addresses purchasing and sustainability costs, how matching money will be sought, how the finances will be managed, and ways to address shortfalls and obsolescence (Anderson, 1996b). If your needs exceed your budget, you may seek funding from federal agencies or private foundations. The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Technology and other federal and state agencies offer several long-term initiatives, such as the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, Community Technology Centers, Next Generation Technology Innovation program, and Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/edgrants.html). Many funding opportunities from private foundations are cataloged on-line by organizations such as The Foundation Center (http://www.foundationcenter.org) and Philanthropic Research, Inc. (http://www.guidestar.org).
Volunteers from the local community and businesses can be important to bringing your plan to fruition. Besides helping to develop the technology plan, local people may offer expertise as well as financial support. Local support at the beginning of an initiative can grow into long-term funding if your project serves community and business members, in such ways as providing space for distance learning or technology training or offering access to infrastructure or digital reference services. Some schools involved in the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP), now called the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP), turned potential partners into sustaining partners by offering essential (Department of Commerce, 1996). Many of the TIIAP schools also found that attention generated by the projects brought in new partners, building greater sustainability.
Implementing the plan. A key aspect to every technology plan is professional development (Anderson, 1996a; Consortium for School Networking, 1999; Meyer, Steuck, Miller, Pesthy, & Redmon, 1999). Ineffective or nonexistent technology training reduces the possibility of benefits from the program and can also result in a loss of investment due to equipment sitting idle. Technology instruction should encompass basic technology skills and address strategies for integration (Consortium for School Networking, 1999; Meyer, Steuck, Miller, Pesthy, & Redmon, 1999; Wolinsky, 1999).
Even though the bulk of first-year technology costs relate to building and equipment, you should set aside some funds for professional development so that new equipment may be utilized right away. After year one, professional development and technical support will take larger portions of the budget pie (Zeisler in AEL, 2000). The U.S. Department of Education recommends that school districts allot 30 percent of their technology budgets to professional development (Department of Education, 1996); however, observations of school districts indicate 10 percent is more common (Zeisler in AEL, 2000) and many schools do not include this essential budget item at all (Panel on Educational Technology, 1997).
The infrastructure is perhaps most often conceived as the greatest need, for it involves making decisions about equipment and network access -- the "wires and boxes." Again, the vision described in the planning document that has been crafted to meet the needs of the curriculum should guide network and equipment choices.
Decisions about room or building use should be made before purchasing equipment. Room configuration is based on the intended purpose, whether it is to be used as a lab, classroom, lecture hall, or even distance-delivery facility. This purpose guides networking options, variations in flooring, wall color, furniture, placement and type of equipment, as well as lighting and HVAC systems (Carter, 1997). As few as two or three computers in a classroom can have a significant impact on spatial needs (North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction, 1995).
Networking decisions may be difficult for schools to make alone, but are an essential part of technology plans. Equipment vendors and technical consultants can be helpful, but working with these outside sources will be more productive if you have a plan that clearly defines educational outcomes, a realistic budget, and expectations regarding timelines. Do your research. Know what services you need and understand some equipment options to make these relationships more positive (Anderson, 1996a; Department of Commerce, 1996).
Your technology plan should encompass networking within buildings as well as connections across the district and beyond. While most districts are aware of the push for Internet connectivity, especially through programs such as the Universal Service Program for Schools and Libraries, commonly called the E-rate program, connectivity may also include phone, television, and satellite services. Wireless options, too, may be an option for network connections within a school or to the World Wide Web.
Retrofitting existing facilities is a cost that many school districts face but often fail to budget for. Retrofitting costs include wiring, asbestos and/or lead removal, new lighting, and modifications to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Consortium for School Networking, 1999). Zeisler (1997, 1999) adds that many schools neglect ergonomic considerations necessary for the proper use of equipment, such as keyboard trays and appropriate seating. They may also forget the need (and the cost) for additional outlets and storage space for peripherals, notebook computers, carts, and even student backpacks that may not fit under computer desks (Fisher & Dove, 1999; Zeisler 1997). Security concerns, both on-site and on the network, increase as technology is integrated into the program.
Despite perceived needs, make software decisions only after reviewing your curricular goals and matching software appropriately. Software selection should drive hardware choice (Anderson, 1996a; Meyer et al, 1999; AEL, 2000). Bouie (1998) lists software options for teachers and other instructional staff that include communications tools, network management, information management, curriculum management, classroom administration, and productivity tools.
In a review of studies on school technology expenditures, the Consortium for School Networking (1999) reported that software costs consumed 4 to 10 percent of technology budgets, with 8 percent being average across schools. Suggestions for reducing software expenditures include limiting the diversity of titles across a district to reduce support and training costs, upgrading software packages across the district at the same time, controlling the installation and upgrading of software over a central network, and encouraging staff to use the same software at home as they do at school (Consortium for School Networking, 1999).
Evaluating the plan. Remember that the planning cycle is continuous and each stage feeds and progresses into the next. Although evaluations come fourth in the cycle, they must be planned from the very beginning and take place periodically throughout (Anderson, 1996a; Baker, 1999; Department of Commerce, 1996; Mojkowski, 1999; AEL, 2000). In truth, the needs assessment you do during the initial building of your technology plan is an evaluative step. In successive iterations of the planning cycle you should gather data that will serve a similar purpose when the plan must be revised.
What information is important? While schools are often judged by results on standardized tests (Mojkowski, 1999), the impact of technology may not be measured so easily. Your evaluation plan should be oriented to the goals and objectives developed in the planning process and should provide means to determine whether and how well these goals and objectives are being met (Anderson, 1996b; Baker, 1999; Department of Commerce, 1996; Mojkowski, 1999). Measurements can include the cost of providing a service, its frequency of use, attitudes or satisfaction levels, and measures of impact such as grades and attendance records (Department of Commerce, 1996). Baker (1999) emphasizes that evaluations are planning tools that first and foremost should focus on student learning.
Most schools involved in the TIIAP program (now the TOP program), utilized two or more of the following methods to gather data: interviews, focus groups, telephone surveys, brainstorming sessions, a review of research data about the community from census records and other sources, a review of relevant state or community planning documents, or an inventory of existing technology and technological resources (Department of Commerce, 1996).
Not only should your evaluation plan outline who is responsible for completing evaluative measures throughout the cycle (Baker, 1999), it should provide for feedback to all stakeholders (Anderson, 1996b; Mojkowski, 1999). Community members and business leaders may be looking for a return on their technology investment. Mojkowski (1999) suggests that rich descriptions of what is happening in classrooms and with learning opportunities are needed and can combat the call for rapid improvement on student test scores. Information about the complexity of measuring the impact of technology and descriptions of expected outcomes -- besides test scores -- might be necessary to help stakeholders see and understand results.
AEL. (2000). Principal connections: A guide to technology leadership. [Computer Software]. Charleston, WV: AEL.
Anderson, L. (1996a). Guidebook for developing an effective instructional technology plan, Version 2.0. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University.
Anderson, L. (1996b). K-12 technology planning at state, district, and local levels. ERIC Digest. (EDO-IR-96-07) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393 448)
Baker, E. L. (1999). Technology: How do we know it works? Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology-1999. Available: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/techconf99/whitepapers/paper5.html
Bouie, E. L., Jr. (1998). Creating an information rich environment. T.H.E. Journal, 26(2), 78-79.
Brush, T. (1998). Technology planning and implementation in public schools: A five-state comparison. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 419 528)
Carter, A. (1997). Facilities planning for interactive distance education. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(1), 31-36.
Cartwright, P. G. (1996). Planning for academic computing: Important trends and issues. Change, 28(4), 57-59. Available: http://static.elibrary.com/c/change/july171996/planningforacademiccomputingimportanttrendsandissu/
Coley, R. J., Cradler, J. & Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. Schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Available: http://preservicetech.edreform.net/resource/2296
Consortium for School Networking. (1999). Taking TCO to the classroom. A school administrator's guide to planning for the total cost of new technology. Washington, DC: Consortium for School Networking. Available: http://classroomtco.cosn.org/news.html#release
Costello, R. W. (1997). The leadership role in making the technology connection. T.H.E. Journal, 25(4), 58-61.
Fisher, S. & Dove, M. K. (1999). Muffled voices: Teachers' concerns regarding technological change. In SITE 99: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432 281)
Gilbert, S. & Geoghegan, W. (1995). An "online" experience: Discussion group debates why faculty use or resist technology. Change, 27(2), 28-43.
Meyer, T. N., Steuck, K., Miller, T. M., Pesthy, C., & Redmon, D. (1999). Lessons learned from the trenches: Implementing technology in public schools. In SITE 99: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432 252)
Mojkowski, C. (April 21, 1999). District information technology plans and planning: Monitoring implementation and assessing impact. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 431 031)
North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction. (1995). Impact of technology on school facility design. Raleigh, NC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 502)
Panel on Educational Technology. (1997, March). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k-12ed.html
Rogers, P. L. (1999). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 556)
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1996). Lessons learned from the telecommunications and information infrastructure assistance program. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/top/publicationmedia/lessons/lessons.htm
U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Getting America's students ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the technology literacy challenge. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/national/index.html
Winter,R. (1998). Don't know much about technology planning. The High School Magazine, 6(1). Accessed June 28, 2000, on the Web at http://www.nassp.org/publications/hsmag/planning.htm (This link is no longer functional.)
Wolinsky, A. (1999). What works in staff development. MultiMedia Schools, 6(2). Available: http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/MMStocs/mar99toc.htm
Zeisler, A. (1997). Are your classrooms computer literate? School Planning & Management, 36(1), 15-17.
Zeisler, A. (1999). Your technology plan: More than wires and boxes. Technology Planning & Management, 38(11), 6-9.
[top] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
