Running head: IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1

Technology Improvement Plan for the Academy of Early Learning

James (Zan) Wiggins
Coastal Carolina University
EDIT 760, Section D1
July 6, 2018
IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2

Introduction

The development of the knowledge and skills to lead technology-rich schools and

develop a digital age learning culture is a main purpose of the ISTE NETS-A standards (Metcalf

& LaFrance, 2013). Hyashi and Fisher-Adams (2015) found that school leadership preparation

programs are being more effective with educating future administrators on technology use in

instruction, but to be a technology leader, one must strive to constantly research and learn

emerging technologies for the classroom. The five ISTE NETS-A standards are visionary

leadership, digital age learning culture, excellence in professional practice, systemic

improvement, and digital citizenship. Metcalf and LaFrance (2013) found in their study that

principal’s perceptions of preparedness ranked digital citizenship first and visionary leadership

last.

When choosing a school to investigate the application of the ISTE NETS-A standards, I

decided to choose a new program that was started in a school district in the service area of

Coastal Carolina University. The Academy of Early Learning in the Marion County School

District is a Pre-K program that started in the fall of 2017. The district combined all of their K-3

and K-4 classrooms from three elementary/primary schools into one school building. There are

currently twelve classrooms that house approximately two hundred students and thirty faculty

and staff. The building itself is a repurposed school that was only partially utilized in previous

years.

In order to obtain the information needed to evaluate and assess the current technology

use and implementation at the Academy of Early Learning, individual conversations were had

with the director, the curriculum coach, and three teachers in the program. The respondents

matched the average profile of the school in accordance to average teacher age, years’
IMPROVEMENT PLAN 3

experience, and diversity. Additionally, all of the teachers at the school have taught in the district

for a minimum of five years.

Areas of Concern

According to Zhong (2017), a new role of principals in the twenty-first century and

beyond is to encourage the use of technology in teaching effectiveness and academic

achievements, rather than just being the administrator of a building. This can be achieved by

providing instruction on technology use in the classrooms, as well as providing the hardware

necessary. With the Academy of Early Learning, there is no school or district-level technology

implementation plan. This is the first and largest concern of mine. To develop and implement a

technology plan, the principal must understand the utilization of current technologies to advocate

for the financial resources needed to purchase relevant technology, both hardware and software

(Metcalf & LaFrance, 2013). With the current age of the faculty at the Academy of Early

Learning, the emphasis on and importance of technology use in the classroom is not as great, but

as a new generation of teachers and administrators replace the current faculty, while the students

have a great understanding of technology, the principal will be required to understand and have

supports to lead the integration of technology in student learning and achievement (Hayashi &

Fisher-Adams, 2015). As with any state agency, the decision on the purchase of hardware and

software is usually made by a district-level person, not the person who will be utilizing the

technology daily. The faculty state that whenever they have a suggestion on new technology,

they must provide evidence of the effectiveness of the technology and that it is an industry-

accepted type of instruction. The principal then compiles these requests and submits requests to

the district office, who makes the final decision on the technology purchase. With the
IMPROVEMENT PLAN 4

implementation of formal school and district-level technology plans, the subjective evaluation of

technology effectiveness and need in the classroom will be reduced.

Standard four from ISTE NETS-A concerns continuous improvement of the organization

by effectively using the resources available, related to information and technology. In addition to

utilizing current resources, technology leaders, along with stakeholders, must research and

advocate for new, sustaining funding to continue to achieve the learning goals in the digital age

(Richardson, Bathon, Flora, & Lewis, 2013). Metcalf and LaFrance (2013) found in their study

that principal’s perceptions of their own preparedness in standard four ranked fourth, with only

the standard of visionary leadership ranking lower. Some districts seem more reactive than

proactive, and that is the case with the Marion County School District. In review of their

strategic plan, there is one activity under the action plan for strategy one where technology is to

be utilized to enhance literacy within the district, one activity under the action plan for providing

support to teachers through additional training in delivering literacy instruction digitally, and one

activity under the action plan for the mathematics strategy two that also relates to professional

development (Marion County School District, 2016). Thought these are overall goals, they are

not school-level specific.

A law in Virginia requires an instructional technology resource teacher for every 1,000

students (Richardson et al., 2013), which the Marion County School District is implementing

through a technology specialist at each school. Per the faculty and administration at the Academy

of Early Learning, this will aide them greatly with technology leadership and formalize many of

their currently informal processes related to data collection and analysis of the impact of

technology in the classroom. The current formal data collection methods are through

standardized testing required by the district, but there are some informal data collection methods,
IMPROVEMENT PLAN 5

such as tracking when each student can write their name or read a certain number of sight words.

Teachers who are adept at technology do model their processes for less-adept teachers, and the

administrator models and encourages modeling when new uses for current technology is learned.

A more formal processes for data collection and analysis related specifically to

technology use need to be developed and implemented. This is a high level of concern at this

point, but with the implementation of a school-based instructional coach, this concern should be

diminished. Indicator two of systemic improvement is similar to indicator one, but involves

collaboration in the development of the processes for data collection and analysis, while sharing

the findings to improve instruction. The Academy of Early Learning has just finished its first

year of existence, so the principal took this year to evaluate all the assessments of the students,

both those required by the district and ones administered at each of the former base schools,

before determining which of the assessments were most effective at determining student

achievement. The faculty reported that they all were provided the opportunity to advocate for the

assessments they preferred, while providing evidence of the effectiveness of the assessment. The

principal has now determined the appropriate assessments for each of the learning outcomes. She

has shown effective collaboration throughout this process, but there are not metrics and

assessments specific to instructional technology use. Again, with the implementation of a school-

based instructional coach, these assessments should be developed over the next year.

The fifth standard addresses digital citizenship, including equitable access to tools and

resources. The faculty and administration were sure to address the fact they did not have the

same access to technology in their classrooms as older grades within the district because of the

feeling that it is more important for the older grades to have technology access than the pre-k

grades. Within the school, however, each classroom had the same technology.
IMPROVEMENT PLAN 6

Having technology equity in the classroom is not the only aspect that technology leaders

need to be concerned about. With slightly under 90% of students being in poverty (South

Carolina State Report Cards, 2017), many students may not have access to technology at home,

and the stakeholders in the community may not have access to technology. The school does

provide recommendations for the parents as to where they can get access to technology, plus they

do allow, as appropriate and available, parents to access technology in the school.

The teachers and administrators report that they are required to sign appropriate use

forms and that the district regularly monitors their computer usage. There is a person in the

district office that manages the district’s social media and web presence, and any post or

publication is only placed on the web by that person. Because the school does not have a 1:1

device initiative, along with the young age of the students, the faculty and administration are not

concerned about the students accessing or posting inappropriate content. Though the students are

at a young age, when developing a technology plan for the school, the faculty and administration

should incorporate some age-appropriate lessons about internet safety. As Hollandsworth,

Donovan, and Welch (2017) found in their study, the majority of instruction on digital

citizenship begins around grade three, but nearly all of the respondents indicated that this topic

should be introduced in preschool. My final concern is to ensure instruction on digital citizenship

and safety begins at this young age, so it is ingrained in the students.

Improvement Plan

Though many of the issues brought forth during my review of the adherence of the

Academy of Early Learning to the ISTE NETS-A standards will be addressed with the

development and implementation of a district and school-wide technology implementation plan,

IMPROVEMENT PLAN 7

below I have outlined the specific issues along with resources needed to address the issues and a

timeline to complete the plan.

Task 1: Development and implementation of a school-level technology implementation plan.

Resources Needed Training Needed Point Person Timeline

Development of a None. Principal, along Complete plan developed

committee to implement with the new over the 2018-2019
the plan. All stakeholders technology coach academic year for
should be included: that is to be hired. implementation in the
faculty, staff, district 2019-2020 academic
personnel, IT personnel, year.
parents, and community
members.
Success Criteria: The school-level technology implementation plan will be developed, based on
researched, effective methods, and implemented throughout the school during the 2019-2020
academic year.

Task 2: Formalize assessment and data collection for effectiveness of technology implementation
in instruction.
Resources Needed Training Needed Point Person Timeline

Formal assessments Teachers or Technology Summer 2019, after

related to implementation personnel coach development of the
of technology in performing the school-wide plan.
instruction. Utilize assessments will
assessments directed at need to be trained
the specific technology on proper use of
as well as assessments on the assessment.
the content.
Success Criteria: Formal, research-based assessments will be utilized during the 2019-2020
academic year, with a full computation and analysis of results in June 2020.

Task 3: Implement equitable technology at the Academy of Early Learning that is comparable to
the technology available to students at all other schools in the district.
Resources Needed Training Needed Point Person Timeline

Funding to purchase Teachers utilizing Technology Fall 2019, after

appropriate technology, the new coach in development of the
both hardware and technology, as conjunction with school-wide plan.
software. well as students the IT department
on the use of the and procurement.
new technology
IMPROVEMENT PLAN 8

Success Criteria: Equitable distribution of technology will be evident by having a documented

list of technology resources available at each school to show the Academy of Early Learning has
the same resources available as other schools.

Task 4: Provide appropriate instruction on digital citizenship to students, including safety and
availability of educational resources online.
Resources Needed Training Needed Point Person Timeline

Development and Teachers will Technology Summer 2019, after

incorporation of need to be trained coach development of the
information into current on incorporation school-wide plan.
curriculum. of digital
citizenship into
their curriculum.
Success Criteria: Definitive instruction on digital citizenship will be infused into the current
curriculum. Assessments will address digital citizenship and students will achieve a passing
score on the digital citizenship questions.

Conclusion

Adaptation to changes and increasing technology use in the classroom is a must of

administrators today (Metcalf & LaFrance, 2013). Development and implementation of a school-

level technology plan, while ensuring equitable allocation of resources, assessment of

effectiveness, and instruction on digital citizenship will help move the Academy of Early

Learning, along with its faculty and staff, into the future of a technology-rich instructional

environment.
IMPROVEMENT PLAN 9

References

Hayashi, C.A., & Fisher-Adams, G. (2013). Strengthening leadership preparation to meet the

challenge of leading for learning in the digital age: Recommendations from alumni.

Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 26,

51-67.

Hollandsworth, R., Donovan, J., & Welch, M. (2017) Digital citizenship: You can’t go home

again. Techtrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 61(6), 524-530.

Marion County School District 2016-2021 Strategic Plan (2016, April 28). Retrieved from

https://www.marion.k12.sc.us/Page/1681.

Metcalf, W., & LaFrance, J. (2013). Technology leadership preparedness: Principals’

perceptions. Journal of Research in Education, 23(1), 58-75.

Richardson, J. W., Bathon, J., Flora, K. L., & Lewis, W. D. (2013). NETS[middle dot]A

scholarship: A review of published literature. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 45(2), 131-151.

South Carolina State Report Cards (2017). Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov/data/report-

cards/state-report-cards/2017/view/?y=2017&t=D&d=3410&s=000.

Zhong, L. (2017). Indicators of digital leadership in the context of K-12 education. Journal of

Educational Technology Development & Exchange, 10(1), 27-40.