Running head: TECHNOLOGY PLAN 1

Technology Planning Paper

Kaitlyn Valis
Loyola University Maryland
 Technology Planning 2

Technology implementation in education is different for every school based on a variety

of factors that influence the effectiveness of the change that is occurring. The current situation at

a school influences the change process as well as the past experiences of teachers and students.

There are many aspects and stages of the planning and implementation process. The analysis of

the current situation of Connelly School of the Holy Child, a discussion of stakeholders invested,

the vision of the plan, and action steps and assessment are all addressed.

Connelly School of the Holy Child is a catholic independent all-girls school in Potomac,

MD for grades 6-12. Holy Child is an innovative educational institution that values each student,

their unique abilities, and their individual learning needs. Our foundress Cornelia Connelly

emphasized the necessity to meet the needs of the age and one way that our school is trying to do

that is through purposeful and thoughtful integration of technology into the learning process.

Next year will be the official rollout of our 1-1 Surface Pro program which will benefit students

and teachers in the process of educating young women to be strong intelligent college-bound

students that will influence the world.

Analysis of Current Situation:

Previous to our 1-1 Surface implementation Holy Child has been a bring your own device

school (BYOD). Our school is very well equipped with laptop carts, computer labs, Mac Lab,

interactive projectors, and laptops for teacher use. Our technology department has always done a

good job of providing technology to be used inside and outside the classroom. According to

Surry (1997), diffusion is defined as the process by which an innovation is adopted and gains

acceptance by members of a certain community (para. 2). In my opinion in the past the

availability of the technological resources has been great, but the support, communication, time,

and infrastructure has not been supportive for the teachers. There has always been a small group
 Technology Planning 3

of faculty members who are interested and engaged in exploring implementing technology in the

classroom, but across the whole faculty there is a wide range of comfortability when it comes to

technology use and implementation.

Holy Child has been going through a variety of transitions in the past few years including

much change in leadership and a more focused vision. Last year a new technology committee

was formed and we were tasked with developing and writing a long term technology plan that

will influence the technology implementation over the next few years. It was through writing this

plan and discussing the direction that we would like to go in terms of technology that we decided

to implement a 1-1 program and move away from our BYOD policy.

During the 2016-2017 school year Holy Child is implementing a 1-1 Microsoft Surface

Program starting with our 9th grade students and expanding in the middle school to the 6th and

7th grade. Our one 6th grade class piloted the 1-1 Surface program during the 2015-2016 school

year to much success. It was a great way to test and think through various aspects of the rollout

on a smaller scale. I'm excited about the potential curricular impact of this program and what it

will do for student learning. There are many transitions that are already happening as we are

discussing the impact that this change will have on the classroom. We have already begun to

work with the faculty to think more intentionally about their use and implementation of

technology. We are establishing a more structured faculty professional development model for

technology integration and are working to establish a culture where technology is implemented

in a meaningful and transformative way. An infrastructure to support the faculty has been

established through one on one meetings with faculty, a tech camp week over the summer, and

PD sessions next year. Throughout this process we have been exploring a variety of student

organization and "turn in" resources related to and separate from Veracross (our schools school
 Technology Planning 4

management system and LMS). Having all of our students and teachers on the same device and

the tablet/laptop capabilities of the Surfaces will hopefully alleviate some device issues and

provide a more positive experience for technology integration.

We are also beginning to work on writing the technology, information literacy, and

digital citizenship curriculum so that there is curricular integration of these skills for students

throughout their time at Holy Child and across disciplines. Each of these curricula and the

integration that the teachers will be implementing in the classroom will equip students with the

technology skills and digital resources to meet their learning needs and prepare them for the

future.

Based on Surrys perceived attributes the innovation will experience successful

implementation if the following attributes are perceived by the stakeholders. These attributes are

Trialability, Observability, Complexity, and Compatibility.

Trialability: Since every student will get this Surface Pro device the availability for

teachers to utilize this innovation inside and outside the classroom is high. Whereas before

teachers could assign activities online at home there were always issues of access and device

compatibility. The ability to try different innovations and assign activities both inside and outside

the classroom will be easier for teachers. Teachers have the freedom to try out and utilize a

variety of different learning tool.

Observability (observable results): I am anticipating that teachers and the technology

committee will be able to observe results of this program after the first few months and then

again after the first year. There will be constant reflection and evaluation of the effectiveness and

utilization of the innovation. I will be most interested in the reflection and feedback of the

teachers and technology department because they will be the ones implementing, supporting, and
 Technology Planning 5

troubleshooting the use of the devices. I also will be interested to see and hear from the students

about their perceived effectiveness of the innovation and the effect on their learning needs.

Relative advantage (better than other innovations or the status quo): Based on my

own opinion I can see a big advantage to the 1:1 program and I'm excited about the

implementation for my own classroom and teaching practices. Based on informal and formal

conversations with teachers most of them can see and anticipate the advantage of the 1:1

program. They are starting to think and plan ahead for the things that they will be able to do next

year. I don't think there was a dissatisfaction with the status quo, but now that it is coming

teachers are excited about the possibilities and advantages that the program brings.

Complexity: The teachers have been using the device (Surface Pro) for the past few

years so they have had the opportunity to get used to using the device for their own use.

Depending on the extent of teachers daily use of the device there will be a variety of complexity

levels of integration on the part of the students. So the complexity of the innovation depends on

the use of the device. Teachers who have already been implementing technology with the

resources available will be stepping up the complexity of their use and others will be trying new

resources for the first time. Teachers are concerned about student training; how much training

they will get outside of the classroom and how much training they will have to do inside the

classroom? We have been planning for training during student orientation at the beginning of the

school year and are currently working on how to support teachers with their own training in the

classroom.

Compatibility: Having all students on the same device increases compatibility and that

was one of the main reasons that we decided to go with the 1:1 program versus the BYOD

program. The only compatibility issues that I anticipate and the teachers are concerned about is
 Technology Planning 6

the transition period. For example, next year the 9th graders will be the only students with

Surface Pros and all other Upper School students will still be in the BYOD program. So there

will still be a variety of devices in the classroom and around the school, as well as students

without devices. Specifically, we are concerned about classes with mixed grades and how that

will work for implementing some of the strategies that we are hoping for. We will still have

access to laptop carts and student owned devices but these transitional years will involve some

compatibility problems.

Furthermore, Ely describes eight conditions that facilitate the adoption and

implementations of educational technology. Satisfying these eight conditions help to implement

specific innovations into the school setting. Based on an analysis of the conditions at Holy Child

the effectiveness of meeting these eight conditions in the context of preparing for the 1-1

implementation are described.

Dissatisfaction with the Status Quo: Since our school in general has the necessary

equipment and resources there was not an overwhelming dissatisfaction with hardware but there

is a desire to have a more formalized technology curriculum and more professional development

for teachers. Amongst many teachers and members of the technology committee there is a desire

for more formalize educational technology vision and specifically support for teachers. There is

definitely a recognition that we could be doing better in terms of utilizing technology in more

meaningful ways and more consistently across different departments. In general faculty are

satisfied with the technology resources available, but now that they know the 1-1 program is

coming they can see how helpful it will be to teaching and how revolutionary it could be for their

classroom.
 Technology Planning 7

Knowledge and Skills Exist: The knowledge and skills of faculty members needed to

implement this change effectively exists in some faculty members, but the range of skills and

knowledge is quite large. There is an acknowledgement that some faculty members have

experience in implementing technology and a desire to learn and grow in this area, but there are

others who are far behind. Across the board there is more need for professional development and

support of faculty, but there are plans in place for these trainings and they have been

communicated to the faculty. Especially the faculty member who are on the technology

committee know that we have thought strategically about that plan and have put things in place

for this training. The wide range of skills and knowledge of our faculty will make building this

knowledge and skills more challenging, but those of us leading and coordinating these PD

opportunities are working to make these times meaningful for everyone. Members of school

administration, technology committee, and myself are working hard to plan technology PD days,

quick afternoon training sessions, and a weeklong technology camp in the summer.

Resources are Available: In general, there is a belief that we have resources available in

terms of hardware. Teachers are excited about the capabilities of their own laptops and resources

in the classroom as well as those that will be available to students. Those of us in the

mathematics and science department are really excited about the writing capabilities of the

Surface Pro and the potential for almost paperless classrooms. Many faculty members are excited

about interactive online resources that will be more accessible to students with these devices.

There are still concerns about infrastructure in terms of internet speed and outlets for charging.

Faculty have been told that is it covered and that there are plans in place to make sure these

major infrastructures exist, but there still seems to be hesitation and concerns about these things

being in place when we implement next year. Faculty also seemed to be concerned, as am I,
 Technology Planning 8

about staff resources and the ability to fix and troubleshoot the many more devices that will be

on campus next year. We have discussed potential solutions to these concerns with staffing in the

technology department as well as potential student help desk assistance that we could train to

voluntarily support the use of these devices.

Time is Available: Holy Child is going through a variety of changes and taking on a lot

of initiatives. The sense that I have been getting from the faculty all year was also expressed in

my interviews and one on one meetings about the 1:1 program. The administration has heard the

concerns and established a long term schedule for PD days and faculty meetings that highlight

the time allocated to each initiative and spread it out over the year. Based on those that I

interviewed they are happy to have a plan that was established intentionally, but there are still

concerns about getting it all done (including curriculum mapping) over the next year. One of the

tasks for the summer will be to establish a plan for each of these PD sessions so that we can

make this time meaningful for the staff as well as keep the plans somewhat flexible to

accommodate needs that arise throughout the year. There is already a summer tech camp for one

week that was optional for faculty, so the administration and leadership is making this time

available for faculty to support their own professional learning throughout the summer. Some of

the faculty questioned whether this was something that would continue every year and how we

would be supporting those faculty members who can't attend the PD week. There are plans for

supporting those faculty members that cant attend, but the accountability for faculty to use these

resources are completely individual. Lastly, the time needed to training and plan varies based on

the person's skill level, so we need to consider how to take this into account and support all

faculty members even with varying levels of skills.

 Technology Planning 9

Rewards or Incentives Exist for Participants: All faculty members that attend our

summer Tech Camp are receiving a stipend for attending and participating in the week. Faculty

agree that this is a good plan and it speaks to the value that the administration places on this time.

Something to consider is how to include this in the budget so that we could support a similar

activity every year. Holy Child does offer financial resources for professional development

through the technology, PD, and department budgets, but these are limited amounts. These

monetary rewards are great, but the reality is that these are not available for every PD

opportunity. Teachers should be intrinsically motivated and incentivized to learn and implement

new technologies. One way to do this is to establish a culture where people are not fearful of the

innovation by allowing people to take risks and being rewarded and not reprimanded if it doesnt

work out. There are still unclear expectations about the expected use of the Surfaces next year.

Faculty are looking for clearer expectations so that they know what students and administration

are expecting from them and if there are any consequences for not using it. Clearer

communication will help to alleviate these unclear expectations and improve intrinsic

motivation.

Participation is Expected and Encouraged: Our technology committee is made up of

faculty members from the middle and upper school, technology department, and a few

administrators. This has given a different feel to the committee because it is made up mostly of

faculty members whereas before it was not. There seems to be more buy in from other faculty

members knowing that they trust the faculty members apart of the conversation and decision

making. Teachers voluntarily joined the technology committee so there is definitely a sense of

buy in and investment from these individuals and their representation of the entire faculty. Even

though there are faculty on the technology committee there are still questions about expectations
 Technology Planning 10

for the day to day use of the 1:1 surfaces for students in the classroom and this could be

improved by more consistent and purposeful communication with the faculty. Also, there seems

to be questions about the overall vision of the program and the overarching goals of the program.

The administration and myself plan to address those at our end of year meetings and tech training

that will be occurring as our kickoff of the 1-1 Surface Program.

Commitment by Those Who Are Involved: After debating 1-1 versus BYOD with the

technology committee a decision was made. There are still some questions about where this

decision came from, but the support of those faculty on the technology committee shows the

necessary buy in from those involved. The administration has brought on myself and another

member of the technology department to focus on faculty support and training and there is a

general sense of gratitude for that extra support. Having this support and running the summer

tech camp shows commitment from the administration. As someone supporting faculty and

leading the 1-1 rollout I also feel very supported and encouraged by the administration. Anything

that I need is made available and any questions that I have are addressed. Also, we have a good

number of teachers attending tech camp and that shows commitment on the side of the faculty as

well. Lastly, our tech department is always very supportive, available, and committed as well.

Leadership is Evident: Our current Director of Technology is leaving and we have hired

a new one that will be starting in July. Obviously there are some questions and concerns about

the transition and the structure of that department. Many of the faculty (including those on the

technology committee) have always argued for the need of a director of educational technology

or someone with more experience in that field so there is some concern about whether this

director will meet those needs in the technology department. Leadership is evident, but there are

some questions about who makes final decision about technology related to curriculum,
 Technology Planning 11

educational aspects, and budgetary resources. Is it the administration, director of teaching and

learning, or the director of technology? My participation in the 1:1 rollout helps with faculty buy

in because I am still a member of the faculty and can advocate for their needs. Im hoping that

my participation and advocacy for teachers will diminish any doubts amongst the faculty, but

there is still doubts about big decisions and the vision and future of Holy Child.

Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz wrote about the ACOT model, established after much

research, it is a model that represents the transition from traditional, one way, lecture style

teaching practices to more dynamic, engaging, and collaborative strategies that are supported by

the implementation of technology. After analyzing the many different aspects of technology

implementation at Holy Child I have established that overall the school is somewhere between

Adoption and Adaption. There is a wide range of comfort and expertise for teachers but many

are comfortable using technology and have gotten past the initial entry difficulties related to

discipline and use. Many teachers are using technology as a substitution for current teaching

practices, but are not fundamentally changing how learning takes place. Some technology leaders

amongst the faculty have led the way in terms of utilizing technology to meet a variety of student

learning needs and works to engage students more thoroughly in the learning process.

Every school has a variety of teachers with varied teaching styles, practices, years of

experience, and personality and Holy Child is definitely no different. There are teachers who are

at every stage of the ACOT model; Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Appropriation, and Invention.

Below are examples of faculty members at Holy Child who are at each stage of the ACOT

model.

Entry: After meeting with a member of the Social Studies department it is evident that

he is in the entry stage of technology integration. He currently uses PowerPoint as a tool for
 Technology Planning 12

delivering content lecture style and hands out packets of paper for every unit that students follow

along with to take notes. In my one on one meeting with him he was really concerned with the

discipline and focus issue when each student will have a device references current discipline

issues with students who take notes using their own laptops. He is clearly experiencing

difficulties similar to a new teacher, is concerned about implementation of the new innovation,

and is still planning to deliver content using a mainly lecture style lesson.

Adoption: For one of our members of the religion department the implementation of

technology is something that she desires to do, but struggles to find the time to explore and

implement. She is not fearful of the implementation, but often struggles with simple

implementation. Her class is still very lecture and discussion oriented and she uses PowerPoint to

deliver content. There are less first year teaching problems in terms of discipline, but trying new

interactive technologies often disrupts learning either in terms of the preparation on the part of

the teacher or student use.

Adaptation: A veteran member of our World Language department exemplifies the

adaptation stage of the ACOT model for her interactive and student driven approach to learning

Spanish. She uses a variety of online technologies that really increase productivity, students

practice of the language, and feedback for students. She has compiled a variety of online

resources through video, voice recording, and vocabulary practice that support students through

more student paced activities. This allows her to get through the necessary curriculum and allow

her to engage with more meaningful activities that expose students to cultural and authentic

applications of what they are learning.

Appropriation: Another veteran teacher who is the department chair of the science

department is a wonderful example of a teacher in the appropriation stage of the ACOT model.
 Technology Planning 13

She has integrated and incorporated technology in the classroom in a variety of ways and

allowed her students to engage with the concepts and skills in a more collaborative way. She

uses highly interactive PowerPoints with videos and animation, and utilizes OneNote to make

resources available for students. In her classroom students are rarely facing the front in rows

because they are working together, teaching themselves, and engaging with project-based

learning. She flips her classroom lesson using screencast videos and is looking into more

interactive in class presentation resources like Nearpod that allows students to participate in class

in a variety of ways. Through a variety of labs and design thinking projects students work

collaboratively to develop their own knowledge.

Invention: As a community we have a few teachers who are on the brink of stepping into

the invention stage of this model and our new Innovate the Space initiative and 1-1 Surface

program next year will further allow and encourage teachers to revolutionize their teaching style

to be more student driven and collaborative amongst the teachers and students. Learners should

be active in the classroom; it should not be a passive process. The flexible and collaborative

classroom will help to further facilitate this type of learning. Technology allows learning to be

revolutionized and it is only through meaningful integration that this will occur.

Stakeholders:

The stakeholders that should be involved in the planning process are the teachers,

technology department, administration, board members, parents, and students. Our previous tech

committee dissolved because our new Head of School wanted to revamp the committee, which

brought more variety and diversity to the committee because they invited teachers to be a part of

it. This year our committee is not as big as last year because last year they invited all teachers

who wanted to be involved to join the committee. This was very ineffective because the
 Technology Planning 14

committee was too large and not consistent. This year our Director of Technology invited those

that were consistently involved and invested last year. We have meetings once a month which I

believe is doable for faculty members and we make the meetings efficient and purposeful so that

the faculty's time is used wisely. Valuing the time of the faculty and making the meetings

purposeful and organized allows the teacher to feel like the input is necessary and valued.

Representation from the teachers should be a balanced group of Upper School and Middle

School teachers from a variety of disciplines. These faculty members who are technology

integration leaders will also be helping to lead the Tech PD day at the end of the school year and

most are participating in the summer Tech Camp happening in July. They are helping to build

the knowledge and skills of each other and the rest of the faculty and it is evidence of the

commitment of those involved in the technology integration.

Currently our technology committee is made up of teachers that are very comfortable

with implementing technology in the classroom. Ideally I would want the input of teachers who

are less comfortable. They wouldnt have to be at every meeting but we should consider how to

include their thoughts and opinions in the planning and decision making process. Currently the

tech committee also includes members of the tech department (Dir of Technology, Makerspace

Coordinator, and System Analyst). It is very helpful to have their expertise and knowledge at

these planning meetings since decisions will directly impact their work and they know more

about resources and technology availability and limitations. Holy Child library and director of

information literacy joins the meetings for specific discussions that pertain to her knowledge and

expertise.

For leadership support and to keep the overall vision of the school in mind it is necessary

to have at least one member of the administration on the committee. We have other
 Technology Planning 15

administrators visit for specific meetings if their input or buy in is important for a specific topic,

but one administrator, the Assistant Head of School, is on the committee for every meeting. In

the past board members and parents have been involved in the technology committee. I believe

that their involvement is important, but not necessary at every meeting. They should approve

plans and budget, but I don't think they are needed in every decision being made about policy.

Making leadership evident in the planning and decision making process meets one of Elys

conditions and shows the whole community of the commitment to this 1-1 program. To get the

involvement of parents, board members, and students we could invite representatives to specific

meetings where we would need or want their input. We could also use shared collaborative

technology as much as possible so that it is more reasonable for people to be involved in the

process. Similarly, students opinion should be taken into consideration when considering policy

and decisions, but they should not have the final say. Potentially utilizing student council to

represent the students' opinions would be helpful.

Currently members of the community, technology professionals, and administrative

support staff are not on the committee. Realistically Im not sure if recruiting community

members and technology professionals would be possible, but our technology integration

leadership should be in contact and collaboration with these people to stay on the cutting edge of

what is happening in business and technology so that education can stay up to date. An

administrative support staff or at least a secretary would be helpful for meetings so that we make

sure to record what is brought up and discussed. This is something that can be implemented for

the coming school year.

Lastly, I believe that the roles of members of the technology committee and those

working in the technology department are not accurately defined and communicated to the rest of
 Technology Planning 16

the Holy Child community. That is something that I have been working with our administration

to address and plan to address with our incoming Director of Technology in July.

Vision:

Holy Child is moving into an exciting time with the rollout of our 1-1 Surface Program

this upcoming school year. Over the next 4 years the entire school will become 1-1 starting with

the 9th graders and moving up every year. This will transform the way that teachers teach and

student learn through the implementation of various technology resources in coordination with

our Innovate the Space initiative. The implementation of this program will allow for more

student centered learning and allow teachers to meet the needs of our diverse learning needs.

Having all students on the same device will hopefully minimize setbacks due to device

compatibility and allow more seamless transition from learning inside and outside the classroom.

I envision that this will also change the way that students organize themselves and their learning.

Hopefully this will allow them to transition from carrying their very large book bags to being

mostly paperless. The 1-1 program will help students to gain the technological skills necessary

for their future needs, including digital publications, multimedia, and cloud navigation. The

teachers will become more coaches and facilitators of learning instead of the distributor of

knowledge. Classroom will become much more interactive with a lot more student engagement

and participation. Lastly, assessments will be improved so that they are more authentic and

project-based, easier for teachers to grade and analyze, and allow for better and more timely

feedback for students.

Once all of our students have Surface Pros the utilization of these devices in the

classroom and outside of the classroom will allow for more blended learning opportunities using

flipped classroom lessons or student paced online and digital resources. There will also be wider
 Technology Planning 17

uses of digital textbook and more interactive textbook resources. Our World Language

department has a fabulous digital text that is very interactive for the students and is one resource

for student practice, feedback, and assessment. I'm excited for other textbooks in other

disciplines to catch up. In the meantime, teachers can create their own culmination of digital

resources for students. I also envision that teachers use more multimedia resources that engage

student both inside and outside the classroom.

On the student side I would envision that students would be able to be creative and

collaborative with digital productions (blogs, moviemaking, interactive websites/poster boards).

In terms of student organization, I think that the widespread use of OneNote by students and

teachers will really revolutionize the way that students organize their notes and work, how

students and teachers interact, how works is turned in, how feedback is given, and how things are

graded. OneNote will be a collaborative space where teachers have access to students "folders"

and students can be assessed digitally and students can organize their different forms of work in

one place. Lastly, the potential integration with various LMS resources will streamline

communication and feedback.

Also, I would love for our students to have access to a broad variety of course, content,

and experiences. Since we are a small school we are limited with the courses that students can

take because of class size and their limited schedule space. We have some students that utilize

the Online School for Girls, but long term I would love to offer more courses that are completely

online and/or blended that our taught by Holy Child teachers and would alleviate some of our

inevitable schedule conflicts and course limitations.

 Technology Planning 18

Action Plan:

The following action plan has been established for the 1-1 Surface Program. The plan

includes past action steps and assessments since the program and my work with the

administration and technology committee has already begun. The technology committee under

the leadership of the Director of Technology and myself has worked all year to establish a plan

for the most successful rollout of our 1-1 Surface Program. We have consulted with the 6th grade

teacher who piloted the program and work with our Dean of Students to plan for and coordinate

an effective training session for incoming students. The technology committee has also worked

to address the concerns of the faculty for their need for professional development and support. It

has been a very busy year, but a successful year where we have established the following plan

for rollout and implementation of the Surfaces into the classroom and curriculum. One limitation

that I see in the three-year technology plan that Holy Child has and the action steps below is a

clear articulation of and communication of the roles of each member of the technology

department and the role that I will play in the department. Since Holy Child has just hired a new

Director of Technology I anticipate that this discuss will happen once he comes on board.

Action Person/Group Date to be Assessment

Responsible Completed By
Intro of Plan to Tech Committee Me March 2, 2016 Feedback from members
of Tech Committee
Intro of Plan to Full Faculty Me March 15, 2016
PD Plan for Faculty
ISTE Standards
Digital Learning Resource
Reminder about Tech Camp
Personalized Meetings for reflection
and goal setting
Individual Meetings with Faculty & Me & Debby (tech March-June 2016 Goal Sheets emailed to
Departments depart) each faculty member
Starting with faculty attending Tech
Camp
 Technology Planning 19

Then 9th Grade Faculty

Then everyone else
Goal sheets emailed to faculty by
the end of June
1-1 Program Intro & PD Day Me, Debby, faculty June 15, 2016 Exit Surveys
Faculty will sign up for specific volunteers, and
session using OneDrive Dir. Of
Technology, and
tech department
Tech Camp - voluntary but stipend Me, Debby, July 18-22, 2016 Lesson/Unit Presentation
Monday: optional Surface Training consultant, admin, at the end of the week
Tues/Wednes: consultant leading on faculty participants
brain based strategies, how to set up
classroom
Thurs/Fri: Time to develop their
own lesson/unit, etc
Develop Digital Library of Resources Me, Debby June-Aug 2016 Thorough digital library
Either in OneNote or Curriculum for faculty to reference
Mapping software and use
Faculty Orientation Me, Debby, Dir of Aug 22-24, 2016 Feedback from tech
Tech Camp Faculty will present Tech, Tech Camp committee about
Veracross reminders Participants effectiveness and survey
Veracross best practices resources of new faculty
distributed
9th Grade Orientation Me, Debby, Dir of Aug 25-26, 2016 Feedback via short
Two days with some tech training Tech, 9th grade survey of those freshman
Device specific, Veracross, and faculty, tech teachers who helped with
digital citizenship department training and those who
use the technology
throughout the first
month
US Orientation Me, Debby, Dir of Aug 29, 2016 Updated screencast
Veracross reminders Tech, Faculty videos of how to access
Office 365 Reminders resources on Veracross
and instructions for
teachers to train in their
own classroom
Tech PD Me, Debby, Dir of Already in the Assessments to be
Further details will be planned Tech PD calendar established once more
throughout the summer throughout the formulized plan is in
Work with Dir of Tech to organize year place with new Dir of
tech committee meetings and set Technology
agenda/timeline for the year
 Technology Planning 20

Comparison of Technology Plans:

During the process of writing and establishing Holy Childs three-year technology plan

the technology committee researched and analyzed a variety of plans from various schools. One

plan that we modeled our own after was from an independent Catholic school in California, La

Reina High School. The plan was very well structured and addressed the mission and vision for

technology at the school and goals that were split up by the audience that they were addressing;

students, faculty, and administration. Also, the plan addressed professional development,

infrastructure, resources, and staffing. The plan was very well organized with goals and sub-

objectives (action steps) to meet those goals as well as specific sections that provide examples of

resources for specific departments. The plan was very detailed and specific with programs,

online resources, and devices, but with the pace of technology Im afraid that the plan might be

outdated or not relevant after the first or second year. I agree that there should be a long term

plan that looks to the future, but this plan might become outdated real shortly after its

publication.

Another more board technology plan is the 2016 National Educational Technology Plan

put out by the Office of Educational Technology through the U.S. Department of Education. It is

a much more thorough and less specific technology plan and therefore can be used as a guide for

creating a more specific district or school wide technology plan. It clearly articulates in a simple

and concise way the purpose of the plan, who its written for, and their vision for educational

technology. The five main sections, Learning, Teaching, Leadership, Assessment, and

Infrastructure, highlight the key aspects of implementing technology meaningfully and

purposefully. The National Edu Tech Plan has goals for each section as well as recommendations

for districts and schools. One specific aspect of the plan that I believe is good is in the teaching
 Technology Planning 21

section it clearly articulates the role of the teacher in the integration of technology as well as the

need for personalized professional learning. This aligns well with my plan for individualized

goals and action plans for faculty at Holy Child to meet teachers where they are at and allowing

them to have a say in their own professional growth. Finally, National Educational Technology

Plan communicates the improvements and transformations of assessment through the

implementation of technology from delay to real time, fixed to adaptive, and limited to

universally designed. The only limitation that I see to this plan that it is broad and very long

because it is created to inform a very diverse and broad audience of educators and leaders. For

schools to implement their own plan they would have to use this a resource to develop their own

plan more specific to their school educators, and students.

In conclusion, Holy Child is embarking on an excited time of technology integration and

Im excited about the work that we have done in the technology committee and the work that we

will continue to do throughout the rollout of this revolutionary program. Technology has the

power to transform teaching and learning and through the proper planning and structure it can be

very successful in revolutionizing the field of education and greatly impact a school community.
 Technology Planning 22

References

Surry, Daniel W. Diffusion Theory and Instructional Technology. [Online] Available

http://intro.base.org/docs/diffusion/, February 20, 1997.