NYC DIIT

5- Year Information Technology Strategic Plan

6/22/09
Part 1:
The Executive Summary meets rubric criteria. This section clearly and
concisely identifies the vision, that the document will; examine the currently
installed solutions and align them with technology and educational trends.
The summary also gives a background, This document describes the current
state of the NYCDOE technology infrastructure In addition, the executive
summary mentions that a goal is to outline a robust and innovative vision
designed to meet the instructional needs of our students over the next 3-5
years.
The following Contributors are identified, Ted Brodheim: Chief Information
Officer, Steve Vigilante: Deputy Chief Information Officer (Infrastructure),
Alejandro Mainetto: Deputy Chief Information Officer (Applications
Development). This section meets rubric criteria.
The ultimate goal, or Vision Statement is mentioned, and therefore meets
rubric criteria. The vision is to build an evolutionary roadmap of cost
justifiable projects to support the NYCDOE in its efforts to strengthen and
enhance its core application and hardware infrastructure to enhance all
aspects of teaching and learning- while enabling schools to tailor their
environments to meet specific goals and objectives.
The Mission Statement does not meet criteria standards. This plan, created
by the DIIT does not seem to provide a clear mission statement, that is
different than the vision statement.
The goal of this document is to, transform the traditional, teacher-led
instructional paradigm to a 21st century model which places focus on
student-centered, differentiated paradigm. The goals stated below are
loosely linked to improvement plans which therefore meets rubric criteria.
To support this transformation the four key areas that this 5-Year Strategic
Technology Plan focuses on are:
- Support for strategic initiatives in Teaching and Learning, Assessment and
Accountability, and Special Education.
- Enterprise eLearning environment for students and staff including the
design implementation of a comprehensive learning and content
management platform.
- A rage of technology services allowing for individualization to meet schoolspecific goals and objectives.
- Access to NYCDOE network resources from anywhere, anytime, using any
device.
The objectives stated in the document, intend to guide the above goals are
immeasurable and therefore do not meet rubric criteria. These objectives are;

Expanding the ability to communicate and collaborate within schools,

among schools and between schools and external sources of
information. The NYCDOE must be able to support the rapidly
increasing number of devices that students and staff now use to
communicate to the rest of the world.
Enhancing the flexibility of the NYCDOE network and technology
options offered to schools by providing a robust technology while
allowing individual principles the flexibility to pick and choose the right
technology for their schools communities.

According to this plan, 98% of classrooms within the NYCDOE school buildings
have Internet access and Wireless LAN connectivity. The plan mentions that
approximately 550 schools connect to the SONET Ring over Frame Relay, 225
schools over ATM and 350 schools over EVPL technology. However, a Needs
Assessment is absent from this plan and therefore does not meet rubric
criteria. In this plan, there is absence of a section that states/describes the
hardware or software present in DOE schools at the time this plan was
created.
In the Current Challenges section the most critical problem that is
mentioned the threshold for online storage and notion that its running out.
This being said, the critical problem of online storage is the one General
Issue that is described in this plan. This portion meets rubric criteria,
however, other significant issues like equal access to technology for all
NYCDOE districts/schools, etc. is not addressed in this plan.
In this technology plan one Conclusions and Recommendations section is
not clearly stated. This plan has many sections that include
Recommendations and Roadmaps for each section. For example, the
following sections have Recommendation and Roadmap components; School
Infrastructure (32), Data Center Services (42), Network Infrastructure (48),
PC Lifecycle Management and End-User Computing (70), Information
Security and Identity (74), Student/Teacher Learning and Collaboration (87),
User Support (95), Evaluation and Assessing New Technology (98). This
section meets rubric criteria.
In this plan, there is not an Acceptable Use Policy present. The DIIT does
not provide a description of relevant policy issues or an adequate draft of
Acceptable Use Policy. This does not meet rubric criteria.
Section 9 of this plan is titled Student/Teacher Learning and Collaboration.
The Technology and Learning Statement of this plan meets rubric
criteria. In this section there is an overview of current and future technology
use. The future technology use describes; the creation of virtual learning
environments, development of a professional development learning content
management system (Adult LCMS), and the development of online core
curricular supports. On page 88, the plan describes that technology will be
integrated into learning and curriculum by; providing support and resources
for online learning communities to collaborate around integrating technology
into curricula and instruction, develop resources to support the integration

of instructional technology into the citywide implementation of the core

curriculum, and partner with several innovative technology-based
curriculum projects in core content areas.
In this technology plan there is no mention of specific technology
standards or requirements. However, in the Design Standards and
Methodology section they mention that this strategic plan focuses on
technological innovation in NYCDOE schools (p. 9). In this section they
discuss that each technological undertaking in schools consists of;
planning, design, implementation, and post-implementation and support.
During the design phase its mentioned that the proposed solution must
adhere to the rigors of technical standards that have previously been put in
place by the NYCDOE (p. 10). The ISTE standards were published in 2007,
before this document was created, but this technology plan was not created
using those standards as a guideline.
This technology plan has a section on Professional (Staff) Development
and therefore, meets rubric criteria. This document mentions that
professional development is time consuming and expensive. The proposed
solution was to recognize the talent and resources within our own
environment which can be shared with a comprehensive learning
management system. A goal of this document was to design and
implement a flexible, open source learning management platform to provide
resources, tools and how-to instructions for the entire NYCDOE community
(14). In addition, this plan also intended on providing adequate skills and
support for key applications and infrastructure areas. The three professional
development components to this project focus on (17):
1. Preparing administrators, teachers, and students to utilize data
effectively.
2. Preparing participants to work effectively within the Professional
Learning Communities utilizing the technology approach to support
planning, team building and leadership skills.
3. Development of 21st Century Learning Skills will be embedded into all
professional development.
This technology plan described how the DIITs grant program would
leverage powerful network teams to embed instructional technology
resources (15). One of these network teams known as Title IID provided
technical support by supporting schools in embedding these resources and
support into educators daily practice (15). Also, located in the Help Desk
(Service Center) is the vision, current state, and recommendations &
roadmap for Technical Support by the DIIT Service Center. The vision of the
Help Desk (Service Center) was its transformation from being a reactive
support organization, to a proactive support organization...(94). The
intention was for the Service Center to be flexible in its ability to adapt to
the ongoing changes in technology, and the new support requirements that
will evolve (98). Some of the recommendations included in this plan for
achieving this technical support vision were:
Provide schools with an enhanced Web Self-Service ...(95)

Replace the existing Customer Relationship Management ticketing

application with a more robust application...(95).
Develop Performance Management reports for customers and
management..(95)
Implement a shared Dynamic Knowledge Base application to facilitate
the sharing of information across multiple and varied platforms(95).
Provide Service Desk with remote access capabilities(95).
The above stated description of technical support within this document meets
rubric criteria.

Section 12 of this technology plan displays the Overall Budget Plan.

The figures below are said to be guidelines/high estimates rather than
precise budgets (100). The reasons being; technology changes rapidly
(100), technologies in this plan are at various stages of maturity and the
accuracy of the budget estimates reflects that.(100), and centralized
storage for student activities are just being started at the DOE..(100) The
table below satisfies the criteria for the Projects, Budgets, Timelines
portion of the rubric. This table shows a three year budget projection for
various technology projects and tasks. However, being that this is a five year
Information Technology Strategic Plan, the budgets for Year 4 and Year 5
should be displayed .
The Clarity of Writing for this document exceeds rubric criteria. This
document is extremely comprehensive and thorough. There is no evidence of
misspelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes.
The Executive Summary meets rubric criteria. This summary includes
adequate information regarding; the DIITs vision, mission, goals and
objectives. For example, the ultimate goal of this document is ...to build an
evolutionarily roadmap of cost-justifiable products to support the NYCDOE in
its efforts to strengthen and enhance its core application and hardware
infrastructure to provide quality services to enhance all aspects of teaching

and learning(1). However, the executive summary is lacking the presence

of findings and issues and therefore does not exceed rubric criteria.
What are the biggest positives and negatives about the existing plan?
This 5-year plan was created in 2009 by the NYCDOE DIIT. During that time (6
years ago) I feel that the DIIT attempted to put a strategy together based on
the Chancellors Children First Initiative as a guideline for the NYCDOE. In this
document, the DIIT addresses the need for support for strategic initiatives
(teaching and learning, assessment and accountability, and special
education), enterprise eLearning environment, access to NYCDOE network
resources, and a range of technology services. From this document it seems
as though the DIIT did their part addressing many components and roadmaps
for how those needs should be met for the NYCDOE. However, it seems as
though there should a NYCDOE component that guides districts and their
schools in the implementation and support of this work.
What changes would you make to the plan?
Although I wasnt yet in the system during the time this plan was created, I
can say that 6 years later it doesnt seem like there is a solid foundation in
place that support schools strategic initiatives like Teaching and Learning
or Special Education as stated in their goals. Being that this document was
created 6 years ago I feel as though I should be able to accredit some of the
structures that my district and schools has to this work. However, I feel that it
is hard for me to currently pinpoint any technology systems or successes that
came out of this document. For example, the assessment system that was
stated in this document known as ARIS, was an externally contracted
company that is no longer being used. Currently, there are no professional
development technology resources for schools, other than if schools create
contracts with individual companies. For example, creating a contract with
TEQ will get you teacher training and support for the SmartBoards your
school installed using neighborhood Participatory Budget funds. In hindsight,
I feel that there are many negatives to this document and I cant imagine the
cost which came out of this plan, that clearly was not successful. On this
large of a scale, Im not sure what I would exactly change. However, I know
their should have been work at a district level that hashed out the specifics
for schools within each specific district; for example clear goals should have
been outlined, needs assessments conducted and general issues stated on a
district wide basis. Findings may have shown that District 15s data looked
different than District 13, then plans should have been created based on
those outcomes, tailored to each district. I cant say the DIIT is at fault, but
for a public school system as large as NYCDOE, there should have been a
technology action plan that paralleled this work to hold districts accountable
in supporting their schools with technology needs and accessibility.
On a whole, do you feel that this plan accomplishes its goal?
If we were currently living in the year 2009, I think I would feel yes, this plan
sounds like it has a clear roadmap for how it is going to accomplish its goal. 6
years later, I can say, no this plan didnt accomplish its goals. Since
technology is rapidly changing, I feel that creating a 5 year plan and not
making time to revisit and revise it as times change was a huge failure in this

undertaking. It seems as though people with great ideas got together,

created this plan and 6 years later (1 year past this plan's expiration) it does
not seem this work was successful. Not to mention, this is the only document
I can currently find for the NYCDOE in regards to this topic on the Internet.

Part 2:
What pieces of this article are still applicable now to what current
technology plans need?
Most of the ideas in this article continue to be important and integral
when creating technology plans today. I agree that five year plans are too
long. After evaluating a 5-year technology plan, I agree with the statement
that 5 years is too long of time to effectively carry out a vision, especially due
to the fact that technology is always rapidly changing. Another factor that is
applicable today is the purpose of technology purchases. Purchasing
technology should be based on output rather than input. This continues
to be a valid point when planning for and purchasing technology. Rather than
saying I want a class set of laptops. The purchasing of technology should
be based on what students, staff, and administrators want to do with it. Other
ideas that still play an important role in technology plans today are;
integrating technology into the curriculum, the importance of staff
development, and having a vision. Lastly, I feel that the four critical attributes
stated in the article, still very much apply to today. For example, it is critical
to have on-site technical support, access to adequate hardware, access to
appropriate types, and amounts, of software, and long-term, sustained staff
development and services.
What pieces of this article no longer apply to developing modern
tech plans for school districts?
I feel that there are more portions to this article that still apply to
technology plans today than pieces that dont. However, I do feel that 23
years later there are a few changes that could be made. For example, in
present day, I feel that video production is not as important in schools as
reading and writing is. Today people would argue that digital citizenship and
coding are two subjects that are of equal importance to reading and writing.
Also, I feel that nowadays, most districts do budget for technology as a part
of daily cost of doing business. Although there are many districts where
this still does not apply, the majority of districts do include technology as a
critical portion of their budget. Lastly, staff members are not the only ones
who are responsible for implementing the technology plan. The creation,
revisiting, revising of this document is collaborative effort that should involve
teachers, technology specialists, administrators, students, and parents.