GISD's Technology Plan needs revision

In reviewing my district’s technology plan (GISD, 2008), I found several discrepancies between what I expected to find in this document, and the reality of the information provided.  The first surprise was the fact that the plan hasn’t been updated since 2008.  This means that the data I am referencing in this blog post is outdated.  The analysis I provide will be based on data from 2008.  I will limit my discussion to the thoroughness of the 2008 plan.  The document states that the plan will use the phrase “in progress” for many goals since we were recovering from technology losses due to Hurricane Ike.  Because of that, I can’t get a clear picture of what has or hasn’t been done in each area.  I see that the plan does address the areas listed as needed areas to address in a technology plan, including; goals and realistic strategy for using telecommunications and information technology, a professional development strategy, an assessment of telecommunication services, hardware, software, and other services needed, budget resources, and ongoing evaluation processes.  The plan states that the teachers and administrators were polled in order for the technology committee to meet and make recommendations to the board.  The committee made recommendations to the board which voted whether or not to fund projects.  We even held a bond vote to fund more computers in each classroom.  GISD reports a 1:3 computer to student ratio.  GISD reports that the most pressing need is for integration of technology into the curriculum.  The district goes to great lengths to discuss the evaluation method to be used for each goal, and they even talk about how the committee will meet to discuss progress toward goals.  Nowhere does the plan discuss what will happen if goals are not being met.  This has been a recurring theme in my district.  I see program after program being bought and taught in a cursory way.  And it might actually get evaluated, as in the IT director might print out a usage report for easy tech usage.  But never has a contingency plan been discussed.  The only thing I have seen happen based on low usage, is that the program is pulled and not funded again.  Teachers end up feeling that they shouldn’t take the time to learn a new program when it will be pulled in a year or two.  In summary, I feel that my district doesn’t take time to properly evaluate the goals of our technology plan nor their effectiveness.

Galveston Independent School District (2008).  Technology Plan.  Retrieved from:  GISD Intranet, Server 1, GISD Info, Technology