Ida Hill, Editor

Technology Planning

In Virginia, educators believe school division and school technology plans should guide the sharing of customers, information, products and projects across schools, states, and countries. Customers such as students, teachers and administrators share dynamically with an enlarged community of parents, policymakers, business, industry, and higher education leaders. With a focus on high achievement and improved student learning, plans must be intrinsically linked to a myriad school and central office plans, and local and web-powered resources.

This approach is affirmed in “Quality Principles for Technology Planning” by NSSE. According to these educators, the technology plan:

• is embedded in and supportive of all learning plans and is focused on high achievement for all students,

• is an integral part of the division’s decision-making processes focused on improving student learning,

• relates to, supports, and is integrated with the educational plans at the school, district, state and federal levels; and

• provides for shared decision-making and collaboration among all those who have a stake in the success of schools.

Technology planners and developers, however, are mindful that a technology plan cannot be too detailed in its long-range future design to be adapted to changing needs. Plans must serve as guides to new and better educational opportunities.

In this issue brief, the following questions are addressed:

1. What is the “Virginia experience” in technology plan development?

2. What critical success factors and challenges surround comprehensive and integrated technology plan development?

3. What factors should be considered when developing and implementing an educational technology plan?

4. In what ways has Virginia utilized its technology plans to guide policy, funding and research?

5. What new developments in technology support the need to rewrite and upgrade technology plans on a regular basis?

Concerns about the use of computers and other technologies in schools are summarized in two statements from a researcher and a psychologist. These statements support the need for carefully designed technology plans based on sound educational practices. The first appears in a historical overview of research and trends. It is entitled The Technology Age Classroom (1993). In this overview, Bulkeley and others acknowledge that:

There is some evidence; there are some research results; there are some anecdotal remarks by myriad teachers; there are articles
about thousands of studies; there are stories of improved attitude; improved attendance; and positive effects of large numbers of
students at risk. However, for each positive effect, there are proponents of negative effects. Much of the ambivalence of research results has to do with different expectations of what the role technology can play in the classroom.

The second statement of concern relates more specifically to computers and related programs. In The School Administrator, Jane Healy points out that the trade-offs inherent in the use of computers should trouble us all. She cautions educators to carefully examine:

Money on hardware, software and networks instead of essential teacher education; technology coordinators without adequate
preparation in education; haste and pressure of electronic glitz; cuts in vital areas used to finance technology; installing computers
instead of reducing class size; too soon use of technology in early grades; physical effects of technology on vision and posture; and
the effects of the computer on brain development. Teachers and researchers state some of these same concerns a bit differently in
other articles. Critical factors include:

• Use of a lecture-based practice that is at odds with the best applications of technology.

• Technology utilization in schools as tools for reactive purposes rather than proactive; thereby limiting opportunity for creativity, problem- solving and visioning.

• Disjointed and inadequate plans that fail to incorporate training of teachers, accessibility to technology when needed, gaps in access by certain groups, sustainability hurdles, and effectiveness doubts.

• High cost of technology and inadequate planning for technology upgrades, replacements, maintenance and growth.

• Software production lags.

• Lack of availability of qualified instructional personnel and network administrators to engage staff in critical school technology program activities such as plan development and implementation.

Much of the ambivalence of research results in these areas has to do with preparation in the use of technology, fiscal responsibility, priority setting, and the long-term effects of computer use. While this list includes concerns that have gradually surfaced external to the K-12 classroom since the advent of technology in schools, they come as no surprise to teachers and other instructors who continue to observe both the strengths and weaknesses of technology. Teachers and school administrators believe that sound practices are gradually surfacing as carefully designed plans are implemented. Some school division and school technology plans in Virginia, for example, are being refined and upgraded to address elements such as learning styles, teacher training, technology’s effectiveness as a tool for delivery of information, and its use with various groups of students under select conditions and for select purposes.

Technology plan highlights and growth endorsements include:

• Long-term plans that incorporate satellites, computers, video technologies, networks and traditional audio-visual media in combination to help develop critical thinking and problem solving skills, provide comprehensive staff development programs, close the digital divide, motivate and accelerate learning, and assist with subject, grade, and overall program evaluation.

• Inclusion of learning technologies such as computers and video technologies as components of an integrated voice, video and data
  system in long-term plans. These technologies improve communication and deliver an array of instructional services tailored to the needs of handicapped, advantaged, disadvantaged, gifted and at-risk and other students.

• Implementation of properly executed learning networks to accelerate project completion and eliminate routine tasks

• Installation of Internet connected, wide and local area networks to enhance teaching methodology, make lesson plans and lessons more
  effective, interesting and accessible; and provide innumerable opportunities for research and data collection.

• Planned use of sophisticated learning technologies to prepare a student for the world of work simply because they are major tools in the world economy.

• Competitive purchasing, cost negotiation, and planned group buys result in greater affordability and accessibility to valued resources.

• Use of available research and best practices to provide substance for technology plan development.

• Comprehensive planning to eliminate cost due to duplication and widespread use of technology prior to pilot testing.

A 1991 CCSSO Technology Policy Statement concluded “[t]he state must communicate a clear and persuasive vision of technology’s role in education to ensure that all key persons… work toward a common goal for technology use.” Other educational technology advocates and planners also support comprehensive planning. A 1994 policy brief issued by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory indicated that:

• The integration of technology into schools must be based on a comprehensive plan, carefully developed by each local school board in cooperation with its administrators, faculty, parents and community.

The Laboratory brief also revealed that:

• A substantial number of school boards did not know how to proceed with such a strategic planning activity and/or did not feel comfortable with their ability to handle the technical issues that were sure to be raised by the process.

That recognition of the absence of school board technology plans across states in 1994 was accompanied by recognition of the absence of a comprehensive technology plan at the national level. On March 31, 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Goals 2000 legislation, the cornerstone document for future federal education legislation. Under Title II, Part C of Goals 2000, authorization is given to the Secretary of Education to develop a national long-range plan.

Comprehensive technology planning and plan development at the state level, while differing in quality, scope and practice, was evident before 1994. Virginia’s first long-term technology plan was approved for implementation in 1986. Subsequently, the Virginia Department of Education has approved long-term technology plans for all school divisions in the state.

According to a 1998 survey of Virginia school principals conducted by the Milken Exchange in Education Technology, three-fourths (76 percent) of the schools had technology plans. The urban and suburban schools were more likely to have technology plans than their rural counterparts. Sixty-seven percent of rural schools compared to seventy-nine percent of urban and eighty percent of suburban school had technology plans. Most schools (89 percent) had written policies for students regarding the appropriate use of technology. Following a state request for acceptable use policies since 1998, the percent is expected to be higher for school division appropriate use policies.

In 1993, Electronic Learning reported that the majority of the nation’s schools (67%) and districts (64%) had technology plans. The report also indicated that most plans were three to five years long.

States recognized as leaders in educational technology applications have addressed issues that raised questions among funders concerning the presence of technology planning and technology plans. In North Carolina, a 1993 legislative request by the North Carolina Department of Education for $356 million to support the state’s technology plan resulted in a delay following the response to a question relating to the number school districts with plans. In Florida a successful request for $55 million for technology, $8.65 million for instructional software, and an additional $80 million for instructional materials in the early 90’s, required each school to write a plan… (Castor, Electronic Learning Interview,1993).

Good planning involves good leadership. Technology planning has happened and continues to happen in Virginia and other states because leadership at local, state and national levels is strong in support of technology.

The impetus for sound technology planning in Virginia schools has come from a variety of programs and sources. Virginia was among a handful of states actively involved in educational technology planning before the 70s. But the state’s involvement and technology plans were specific to instructional needs and programs that developed in distinctly separate ways and, at times, under the auspices of agencies independent of school control. The earliest technology program was educational television. Courses in core subjects were taught by teachers from participating school divisions who were employed by the public television station usually on a short- term basis. Programs produced were offered to schools via television for a fee. These supplementary programs were offered as early as the mid-60s via a network of broadcast channels.

Another evidence of a specific technology program plan was the statewide distance learning plan of the 70s. Advanced learning and highly specialized courses were made available to schools that (a) did not have a qualified teacher, (b) did not have a sufficient number of qualifying students to warrant the employment of a teacher, and (c) to provide options to students who had specialized scheduling and other needs. Since the 70s, these two programs have been incorporated into each of the state’s educational and technical plans.

It was not until 1986 that a comprehensive technology plan spanning six years was developed to address the recommendations of the Governor’s Commission on Excellence in Education. While much enthusiasm for the use of technology in the classroom existed, no single document provided a vision and mission. Strong support for strategic planning came first from computer advocates largely outside the school. Policy makers wanted all students to be prepared to understand the computer and be aware of its value to education. Business leaders wanted students to know proper computer skills, to take advantage of employment opportunities, and to contribute to a productive workforce. School reformers believed computers facilitated change and were symbols of progress.

The Virginia Board of Education, the Governor’s Commission, and the General Assembly authorized the development of technology plans, curriculum integration of technologies and infrastructure building for state agencies and schools. A chronology of these actions by year may be described as follows:

• 1986 The Governor’s Commission on Excellence in Education recommended that the Department of Education develop a five-year plan to make educational technology an integral part of education in Virginia. The resulting plan was a six-year plan to integrate technology initiatives with school division requirements by the Standards of Quality for public schools in Virginia.

• 1993 A Department of Education Technology Planning Committee (91-80), under the Common Core of Learning movement, developed a “Strategic Plan for Educational Technology.”

• 1993 The Communications/Automation Transition System (CATS) was an electronic communications network plan for a shared network for the Department of Education, schools and other state agencies. The K-12 education network identified as VA PEN was and continues to be managed by the Department of Education.

• 1994 The Virginia Board of Education authorized the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop the Commonwealth’s second Six-Year Plan for Educational Technology. Authorization was also given to the Virginia Educational Technology Committee to lead in formulating the new plan.

• 1995 An implementation plan was followed by the adoption of the Standards of Learning by the Board of Education, to develop tests for the English, science, mathematics, history and social science and computer technology. The first administration of the tests took place in 1998.

• 1997 An implementation plan for the Six-Year Educational Technology Plan for Virginia (1996-2002) was developed to provide strategies, projects, roles, progress and timeline to local schools for follow-up.

• 2000 Annual submissions of school division technology plans to the Department of Education result in special recognition for outstanding plans. The 2000 awardees were Nottoway, Taswell, Franklin, Mathews, Isle of Wight and Henrico counties and the cities of Lynchburg and Manassas Park.

• 2000 Governor Gilmore’s Digital Opportunity Task Force, organized to identify and coordinate digital opportunities; ensure access to the computer and Internet; and encourage community-based initiatives, will produce a report and recommendations.

• 2002 A new technology plan for the state education agency and the Commonwealth’s schools is under development. Target objectives are being developed and an accompanying narrative is to be developed by the Spring, 2001. The final draft is projected for January, 2002.

Regional and national agencies, commissions, and boards have provided guidance and products to assist states with the development of technology plans. SECA, for example, issued a booklet to member states on technology planning. Thus, technology plans across the nation include similar components. Virginia technology plan requirements include:

• Vision
• Mission
• How technology is used
• Current status of technology
• Needs assessment
• Goals/objectives
• Strategies and timeline
• Evaluation
• Training plan
• Collaboration activities using technology resources

More and more, school divisions are being required to connect technology plans to Standards of Learning and other curricula programs and projects. At the state level, three recent US government funded initiatives have been or are linked to school division technology plans.

• Goals 2000 funds were earmarked for the purchase of computers and related technologies. School divisions had to ensure that curriculum plans were incorporating the new technologies.

• The Technology Literacy Challenge grants issued to schools require a professional development plan that is linked to the school division technology plan.

• Universal Services applications for e-rate funds require that a long-term technology infrastructure and networking plan be in place at the school division level. A qualifying requirement is that each school division’s technology plan be reviewed and approved by the state’s education agency.

Technology funding initiatives of the Virginia General Assembly support technology planning and technology plan upgrades. School division technology plans must be approved by the Virginia Department of Education before school divisions can qualify for funds. Consistent with the state’s funding application process, many local school divisions link grants to school technology plans.

• The Prince William County multimedia staff development plan for math and social studies for grades 4, 5 and 8 supports the school division technology plan goal to have students become “lifelong learners, productive citizens and develop their fullest potential by using technology… to create and derive meaning in all areas of study.” Teacher training focuses on the application and integration of technology into the curriculum.

• The Goochland County Public Schools “Online Lesson Planner User Manual” for teachers addresses specific aspects of the division’s technology plan. Included among the objectives are:

  1. Use technology to enhance the instructional process

  2. Provide comprehensive and ongoing staff and student training in the use of technology (computer technology, video production, graphing calculators, scientific probes)

  3. Provide for daily unencumbered access to technology; and

  4. Develop instruments to assess both qualitative and quantitative aspects of educational technology.

• Technology innovative project awards in Chesterfield are made to schools that demonstrate fiscal responsibility and submit proposals that are linked to school improvement plans.

• The West Point Public School Division Six-Year Technology Plan (1996-2001) includes goals “to utilize emerging technologies to enhance teaching and learning and to utilize technology to design learning environments that enhance students’ learning.” The staff and parent development program employs Scientific Learning Training programs (Fast For Word, Step 4 Word and Away We Go) to increase reading skills of K-5 students.

An increasing number of higher education and K-12 collaboratives promote joint planning and development. One example is the proposed multi-protocol Virginia Tech video conferencing bridge. The plan calls for H323 to ATM to ISDN connections to the VA Tech demonstration center. The installation of the bridge will improve and expand two-way interactive capability at the Department of Education and its Region B Governor’s Best Practice Center in addition to the provision of improved services to other state agencies.

Cascading throughout the state are a number of networks that operate within or outside Network Virginia. Networks such as VA PEN, VSEN, the Internet and school division networks are utilized on a daily basis.

The most obvious and essential related issues to technology plan development and implementation are:

• Funding. The value of a plan is viewed in terms of the support it receives for implementation. All good ideas and essential programs and projects can be funded. Often, priorities must be set. Selection of priorities for technology must be weighed against other program priorities. However, because technology networks and systems require a certain level of funding for implementation, including up-front costs, maintenance, staffing , upgrades, external contracts, and access, partial funding for many technology initiatives results in partial or complete failure.

• School Construction. Improvement of projects and funding for educational technology and school construction are linked. Although the Commonwealth did not directly fund school construction prior to 1996, Legislators were already recognizing that the state operated two interlinked debt mechanisms for funding school construction and technology (the Literary Fund and the VPSA). Thus, recommendations to the Senate Finance Committee included support for both programs.

• Needs Balance. Balancing the excitement of cutting-edge technology with the critical need to determine its value to education will continue to surface as a related issue. School administrators and teachers and researchers must ask the right questions at the right time in concert with the business world.

Within a sound educational technology planning environment, students can be readied to meet unidentified and identified job requirements in the future. Responsible educators and technologists are already noting that the world is different, tools are different, communication is different, work is different, information is different and learning is different. (International Society for Technology in Education, 1997) Developments in Virginia that were only dreams 8-10 years ago are creating the need for new technology planning and upgrades to current technology plans. New elements for technology plan consideration include:

• An America Online computer software program (AOL @ School) that is designed to make the Internet easier to navigate for students and teachers. It will be made available to every classroom in Virginia. The software is a combination search engine and filtering system. Parents and children can access the six educational portals from any computer connected to the Internet at http://school.aol.com.

• The community center concept is gaining in popularity. Power Up is a non-profit organization committed to closing the digital divide. It deals with those who have computers and those who do not. Power Up will assist community centers scheduled to receive state funds totaling $3 million for computers.

• A Web-based SOL Technology Initiative is being developed by the Virginia Department of Education in collaboration with school divisions. Benefits include online data management and data distribution.

• New wireless devices and high-speed connections such as cable modems are creating interest among industry watchers. Forrester Research predicts, for example, that 11 million people will use mobile data services by 2005. (The Associated Press, Barakat, October 2000) Such developments are expected to impact educational technology use in schools.

• Product ads and donated software programs resulting in sales to students by the corporate community are on the rise. Bosher (Richmond Times Dispatch, October 2000) states that “clearly it is good business and good will for the corporate community to support its schools, both public and private. It is also smart for school leaders to seek the endorsement of those who make the market-driven economy a reality… Let’s make sure the partnerships are not confused for profit.” Among most listings of components of technology plans is “collaboration activities using technology resources.” Ads and other topics of a controversial nature should be addressed.

• Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), a wireless communications system operated by VA Tech, will provide another broadband option to Virginia citizens especially those who live in rural areas. LMDS will join satellite, DSL, and cable modems as service access options to schools and communities.

• Specialized platforms and devices on the network that are optimized for particular tasks will challenge industry client services at home and at school.

Click here for summary of recent Virginia Legislative history of “Technology Planning.”

http://www.iste.org

www.ncrel.org

www.mde.state.mi.us/reports

http://www.ael.org/snapshot/index.htm

http://www.ael.org/

Scheony, Zahrl. Technology Enriched Administrators: Integrating Educational Technology into Education. Curry School of Education, UVA, 19999.

Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide comments or additional information. Please indicate in an e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new inclusions.

Back to Top

Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if CEPI is credited.