5.1 Overview
5.2 Design Principles
5.3 Plan Components
5.4 Local Planning Guidelines
Back to Table of Contents
The face of education is changing constantly-and rapidly. Coupled with
the dynamic nature of educational change is the perpetual metamorphosis
occurring with regard to technologies. The pragmatic infusion of technologies
into instruction holds the potential to result in significant, measurable
improvements among all who engage in the learning activity.
Technology cannot be worshipped as a unique, separate entity. Educators
must ensure that the focus is on the individual learner first, followed
by the curriculum. Then, and only then, should technology be brought into
the picture. As long as technology is a tool for learning, conceptually
and practically, positive benefits will accrue. Planning is essential if
school districts are to make the wisest, best use of technologies. Too
many poor decisions have been made, historically, that have resulted in
a waste of financial resources. Effective, strategic local technology planning
will reverse this practice.
Planning is a process, not a product. This statement of belief has
been repeated frequently and adopted as a basic philosophy by many educators
. Technology planning at the local level, especially, must be a perpetual
event upon which final closure is never reached. Planners will stop periodically
and adopt precepts upon which mutual agreement has been gained up to that
point. An essential concept is that technology planning efforts are never
finished. There is always opportunity to improve and strengthen the plans,
as the results of ongoing evaluation are injected into the process.
For purposes of satisfying the requirements of Senate Bill 3350, local
school districts will develop a written technology planning document, acquire
local school board approval, then submit it to the Mississippi Department
of Education (MDE) Office of Leadership & Professional Development. Districts will receive
feedback from the MDE if their plan contains components that need to be
improved, clarified, or modified. Once approved by the Office of Leadership & Professional Development and the State Board of Education, the funds will be distributed
(see guidelines document for exact procedures for distribution of funds).
The planning process will include a recommended annual update feature so
districts can continue to gauge their instructional improvement strategies.
Mississippi educators who were involved in the writing of this section
of the Master Plan for Education Technology offer several words of caution
and reminders about the planning process:
The time required for effective planning is extremely important; local
districts must consider offering release time for planners to engage in
planning activities.
Developing a local technology plan is not an easy task; few truly important
activities are easy. The process can be managed in such a way that the
entire educational community is brought together to revisit what they deem
really important about instruction-all this dialogue can occur with technology
as the core.
School districts will be engaged in their own planning efforts, but
will maintain close communications with the MDE Office of Leadership & Professional Development
personnel so their plans are aligned with state initiatives. The Council
for Education Technology, in cooperation with the Office of Leadership & Professional Development, has established, and will continue to establish, specific guidelines
that must be followed as instructional technologies are implemented throughout
school districts. The state-level function will require that local district
plans interface directly with state plans.
To provide needed technical assistance from time to time, each school
district must have a technology coordinator or specialist who serves as
a main point of contact with the MDE. It is recommended that districts
take the appropriate steps to make the position of technology coordinator
an administrative position, funded in the regular school budget. The needs
of the schools will be served in a much more effective, efficient manner
through the coordinated efforts of the technology coordinator.
Classical technology planning models include multiple layers of planning
activities. Not only does planning occur at the state level, but occurs
at the local level as well.
Each school district should develop a technology plan that encompasses
the technology goals of the district. Although not required, plans should
be written for each school building/site within the district. These building-level
plans should interface directly with the district plan. A trend that is
surfacing, as reported by the National Center for Technology Planning,
is planning at the classroom level. Increasingly, teachers are developing
their own technology plans to establish visions, missions, and goals that
drive how they incorporate technology into their day-to-day classroom practices.
Since the advent of affordable technologies less than two decades ago,
millions of dollars have been spent on the purchase of computers, software,
and associated peripherals. Often, though, these expenditures were not
well planned. Sometimes, purchases were made on the spur of the moment,
especially after a vendor had given a flashy demonstration or offered some
special pricing to a school. Rarely were these purchases correlated with
any instructional intent; it was just some neat "stuff" that
could be purchased and put into the hands of teachers and students.
In many schools, computers were installed in administrative offices
only. Teachers had to become perpetual pests in order to acquire technologies
they needed for instruction. Federally-funded projects were often recipients
of computers, but teachers received no training that would equip them with
the knowledge of how to apply the technology to diverse learning situations.
The Council for Education Technology wants to ensure, as much as possible,
that these horror stories are mere remnants of the past -- that is, that
no such scenarios occur henceforth.
The preparation, organization, and effort that accompanies any strategic
planning activity typically pays dividends in terms of time, energy, and
resources to achieve desired goals. This is especially true relative to
education technology planning at the school or district level. Acquiring
and implementing education technology effectively to enhance both student
and teacher productivity involves a major transformation from what might
be considered traditional educational strategies. It is important that
a systematic process for enacting change capitalize upon early innovations,
successes, and also failures if scarce educational resources are to be
spent wisely and expeditiously.
It seems clear from other education technology planning efforts that
success can be realized when full attention is directed toward curricular
and instructional goals. Curriculum improvement strategies, impacting all
students, must be the cornerstone for education technology integration
efforts in schools.
This document provides detailed guidelines for the design, development,
and implementation of local education technology planning efforts for all
schools and districts in Mississippi. It includes:
Technology planning documents prepared by school districts must be documents of utility. Plans, in their noun form, must be tools that are used by all in the district. For this to occur in a realistic fashion, the plan must include some basic, standard components. To achieve maximum effectiveness, a local education technology plan should be a collaborative educational and community effort. Various working groups and constituencies are able to contribute to those aspects of the process that take advantage of members' special expertise or perspectives. Components of all comprehensive, long-range district education technology plans submitted to the MDE Office of Leadership & Professional Development, should include the following at a minimum:
Sample tables of contents for a local education technology plan are offered in Appendix F. A copy of a sample local technology planning matrix is found in Appendix G. Districts should develop their own matrix of responsibilities and timelines for plan completion. The technology planning committee may use the sample provided as a model. A copy of the district's planning matrix should be submitted along with the local technology plan.
Experience and research on technology planning efforts reveal five critical factors that directly impact effective education technology planning and successful implementation of technology goals. They include:
The school board, superintendent, key administrators, school improvement teams, and leaders of the parent and teacher associations need to be proactive in their commitment to and support of education technology infusion. With many competing priorities for limited resources in schools, top level support is critical to the successful implementation of plan goals.
Planning must reflect the experience, knowledge, and perspectives of
teachers, students, administrators, parents, town/city officials, and local
business representatives. Everyone affected in the short and long term
by the decisions made regarding education technology in schools must be
involved in and/or well informed about planning activities. Most importantly,
the vision of how education technology can be best used to impact education
reform must be a consensus vision, fully endorsed by the implementors of
the plan, and fully supported by those who influence decisions for funding
the plan.
School districts should collect names of people in the community, students,
teachers, and administrators who are interested in working on local plans.
The planning committee will be strengthened significantly by the broadest
possible representation from the community as a whole. Stakeholders will
include any member of the community who has any stake in the educational
welfare of that community. Examples include, but are not limited to: students,
teachers, administrators, parents, business leaders, retired people, and
civic leaders. Within the stakeholder groups, individuals should be selected
for technology planning committee membership depending upon their support
of education in the community. One good method of identifying stakeholders
is to examine back issues of community newspapers. In addition, during
general conversations, the names of potential candidates will arise. The
technology committee chairperson will remain attuned to any possible names
of people who can be added as members of the committee.
Communication is the key to managing stakeholder input. This can be
accomplished well through community newsletters, meetings, local broadcast
media, student input and reporting techniques, and civic club presentations.
It is essential to ensure that the involvement of diverse stakeholders
is recognized, celebrated, and publicized throughout the school district
community while the planning activities are occurring.
The primary focus of any planning activity must remain on the individual
learner and the learning process. Plans should reflect ways in which district
personnel intend to undergird the entire instructional process with robust
technology deployment.
Significant decisions regarding education technology goals and initiatives
should be curriculum-based, since improvement in education is the primary
catalyst for community support. It is difficult to engage and sustain funding
support and staff enthusiasm for hardware lists with few or no clearly
articulated linkages to outcomes for students.
A major obstacle to successful education technology planning and implementation can be the failure to consider the staff development required to integrate effectively acquired equipment and resources into the learning process. Without sufficient professional development, education technology is too often under-utilized; it is used simply to automate older instructional methods or to deliver outmoded curriculum. Teachers and administrators must develop new skills, knowledge, and attitudes for applying information technologies in support of education reform.
A local education technology plan needs to take into account different
potential sources of funding that may be combined for successful implementation.
The regular budget process is generally inadequate to support a major infusion
of education technology within a short time frame. Business partnerships,
grant opportunities, special municipal warrant articles, local foundations,
and other sources need to be explored aggressively.
Thorough strategic planning establishes clear direction over a timeline
that can be expanded or shortened based upon the actual funding generated.
School district leadership must consider incorporating, as an annual budgetary
expenditure, funds to maintain existing equipment, to update or replace
obsolete equipment on a regularly scheduled basis, and to provide necessary
technology support staff training.
This section will identify and outline several key points that local school districts should consider when developing and implementing their technology planning efforts. The discussion that follows will include attention to the use of stakeholders, resources, and local support opportunities, along with the suggested components for a strong technology planning document and proposed stages to be followed by a committee during the various phases of planning.
To assist local technology planners, some general suggestions are offered here for how the committee chair, working in concert with district administrators, will guide the day-to-day functioning of planning activities. These are presented in stages; however, many of these responsibilities could best be carried out simultaneously. In general, the stages of the planning process are as follows:
Stage Five: Development of the Implementation Plan
Stage Six: Monitoring and Evaluation
Before a district technology plan is submitted to a local school board,
it is important to conduct an internal audit and review of the plan. The
education technology planning team should thoroughly review the planning
process and the desired learning outcomes. When that process is complete,
another group of district-level stakeholders, typically the curriculum
improvement or professional development committee, should review the education
technology plan for overall quality assurance.
The next step is to present the technology plan to the district superintendent
so that the key educational leader in the district can address any issues
or questions before submitting the completed plan to the school board for
review and approval. The primary criterion for quality assurance is how
well the completed technology plan addresses school and curriculum improvement
objectives.
Acquire school board approval. A technology plan must be approved by
the local school board. Technology planning committee members, along with
supporters from the community, should prepare a compelling presentation
that will show the board how infusion of technologies into instruction
will strengthen the intellectual life of students and will have the potential
to enhance the economic climate. School board's approval is critical because
the board represents the community's interests and controls the local budget.
The board's acceptance of the education technology plan represents the
community's support and the board's approval for formal adoption of the
plan. If board members were enlisted as key stakeholders during initial
planning activities and periodically informed throughout the education
technology planning process, then the formal school board review should
not represent an obstacle for approval.
However, if the local school board was excluded from planning activities,
then support for the vision, goals, recommendations, and implementation
strategies for the integration of technology into students' education may
be lacking.
Upon approval of the local school board, the plan may be submitted
to the Mississippi Department of Education Office of Leadership & Professional Development
for approval. See Figure 5-1 for approval process flow chart.
When the plan is approved, implementation may begin according to the
timeline in the local technology plan. Strict records should be kept during
initial phases of implementation so "fine-tuning" can occur.
The implementation phase is one that may be replete with anticipation and
excitement. A strong support system will need to be established early in
the implementation phase.
The implementation process is cyclical in nature, not linear. Some
activities will be occurring simultaneously. The committee chair, then,
is well advised to use some type of project management software (or flow
charts drawn on paper, at least) to structure the entire process. Management
of the varied activities will be much easier when a pictorial view can
be acquired. Committee members will have a clearer understanding of how
they are progressing toward deadlines and the extent to which responsibilities
are divided among the groups. If the planning process is managed appropriately,
there will be a greater propensity for success when technologies are infused
into the learning and education environments.
A wide range of support should be made available to technology planning
committees and interested educators. A clearinghouse of printed and electronic
materials that focus upon the planning processes, education reform, systemic
change, and existing and emerging technologies will be developed and monitored
by the Department of Education and technical assistance contacts. Districts
and schools should be provided with electronic access to support materials
and information that planning teams find valuable in conducting planning
process meetings . Once access is provided, individual districts and schools
may analyze and communicate which information that best supports the development
of their comprehensive plan.
Districts can find numerous resources to aid them in developing the
various components of their technology plans. Perhaps one of the most beneficial
resources to Mississippi educators is the National Center for Technology
Planning (NCTP). NCTP offers a plethora of materials that can be employed
throughout the planning process; these have been garnered from hundreds
of schools around the world. A recently developed aid created at NCTP is
the Guidebook for Developing Effective Technology Plans. This booklet is
available for accessing and downloading via the World Wide Web on the Internet.
Numerous articles on technology planning written by Dr. Larry Anderson
are available for distribution to schools, as well. Sample technology plans
from schools around the United States are available through the NCTP.
Figure 5-1: Approval Process Flow
Return to top of page