Baltimore+County+Technology+Plan

Baltimore Country Technology Plan - A framework for Technology Implementation, 2008-2011 **Critiqued by:** Angie, ** Lauren **, Kenny, and Kim M.

[]

** Number of years plan has been and will be in effect **: In 1995, a Technology Implementation Committee presented the first written recommendations for technology use in BCPS. From this document, a "working plan" was created and used as the technology plan for the school system until 2001. Afterwards, Dr. Joe Hariston, Superintendent of Schools worked with a Technology Planning Task Force to review the plan and to develop a more formalized technology plan for the BCPS system. As a result, A Framework for Technology Implemetnation was created for 2002-2005. In 2006, a committee was appointed to review and make revisions for the framework and since then, he 2005-2008 framework has served as the implemtnation guide for tehcnology use in schools and offices for the county. In the fall of 2007, the comittee looked at the current plan and made revisions to meet new state and federal requirements as part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The new document, A Framework for Technology Implemetnation: 2008-2011, was the result of the committee and is meant to provide BCPS the way for technology implemtnation for the next three years. In earlier plans, the committee used the Blueprint for Progress, The Maryland Educational Technology Plan for the New Millenium: 2007-2012, and Maximing the Impact: The Pivotal Role of Technology in a 21st Century Education System (a document published by the State Eeducational Technology Directors Association, The International Society for Technology in Education, and Partnership for 21st Century in 2007 ). (Baltimore County Public Schools, 2008, p. 5).
 * **Plan reviewed:** ** Fall 2007 ** ||
 * July 1, 2008-June 30, 2011 **
 * **Stakeholder groups involved in developing the plan:**

The following committee members were listed, along side Dr. Joe A. Hairston, Superintendent of the BCPS school system:

Michael Goodhues, Chief Information Officer, Department of Technology, Co-Chairperson Thea Jones, Supervisor, Office of Instructional Technology, Co-Chairperson  Renard Adams, Coordinator, Special Education   Patricia Baltzley, Director, Office of Mathematics PreK-12   Yvonne Barhight, Director, Office of Language Arts   Christine Beard, Vice-President, TABCO   Wesley Boykin, Executive Director, Office of Research, Accountability, and Assessment   Judy Campf, Specialist, Office of Instructional Technology   Della Curtis, Coordinator, Office of Library Information Services   Mary Dagan, Resource Teacher, Office of Research, Accountability, and Assessment   Mandi Dietrich, Director, Special Projects   Pete Dixit, Special Assistant, Office of Physical Facilities   Patrick Fannon, Controller, Accounting and Financial Reporting   Michael Fort, Specialist, Office of Instructional Technology   Ryan Imbriale, Assistant Principal, Perry Hall High School   Marsye Kaplan, Assistive Technology Team Leader   Sonja Karwacki, Executive Director, Special Programs, PreK-12   Patricia Lawton, Director, Office of Special Education   Jeff Lifton, Manager, The Education Channel   Maria Lowry, Principal, Chesapeake High School   Rose McCauley, Specialist, Office of Language Arts   Linda Meyer, Lead Technology Trainer, Department of Professional Development   Thomas Michocki, Coordinator, Office of Science   George Newberry, Director, Office of Science PreK-12   Janet Newberry, Supervisor, Office of World Languages   Linda Popp, Coordinator, Office of Visual Arts   Judson Porter, Manager, Department of Technology   Dale Rauenzahn, Acting Assistant Superintendent of Department of STEM and Executive Director of Student Support Services   Diane Rymer, Supervisor, Department of Professional Development   Dan Scroggs, Manager, Department of Technology   Barbara Skillman, Specialist, Office of Instructional Technology   Robert Tomback, Area Assistant Superintendent, Northeast Area   Leila Walker, Coordinator, Career and Technology Education   Michael Weglein, Assistant Principal, Sollers Point Technical High School   Verletta White, Executive Director, Department of Professional Development   Jean Wilson, Principal on Assignment, Office of Early Childhood Education  (Baltimore County Public Schools, 2008, p. 4). || The plan can be located through Baltimore County Public School's Office of Instructional Technology page. It's format is through a PDF File. ||
 * ** Process used to develop this plan: **
 * Greatly influenced by the following: **
 * In 2007, a Technology Plan Revision Committee was charged with reviewing the current technology plan and making revisions to meet new state and federal requirements as part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
 * Blueprint for Progress: Realizing the Vision, June 2007
 * The Maryland Educational Technology Plan for the New Millenium:2007-2012
 * ﻿ Maximizing the Impact: The Pivotal Role of Technology in a 21st Century Education System
 * The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills in 2007 ||
 * **  ﻿ ﻿ Format for this plan: **
 * ** Sections (e.g. curricular areas, professional development) included in this plan: **
 * Overview, Technology Implementation, Student Learning, Staff knowledge and Skills, Decision Making, **
 * Productivity, and Efficiency, Equitable Access, Research and Evalutation, Budget Information, Funding for Technology, and **
 * Technology Costs ** ||
 * ** Goals and sample indicators included in this plan: **
 * Goal: Use technology to accomplish the mission of the Baltimore County Public Schools **

Objective 1: Improve student learning through technology. Targets inclede...  Digital content will be available before, during, and after school to support teaching and learning. Digital content will be integrated into all instruction, as apporiatem ti support teaching and learning. All students will have access to instructional resources that meet their needs. ||  || Objective 2: Improve staff’s knowledge and skills to integrate technology into instruction. Taregets include... One full-time technology integration teacher will be available for every school. All classroom teachers, resource teachers, and special area teachers will meet state-estqablished standards for technology-related knowledge and skills. All school-based administrators and central office staff will meet state-estqablished standards for technology-related knowledge and skills.

Objective 3: Improve decision-making, productivity, and efficiency at all levels of the organization through the use of technology. Targets include... BCPS will develop processes and straegies to provide access to digital resources, data, and information before and after schoool hours. BCPS will provide leadership and support in access to and use of technologies for administrative anf operational purposes. Student, school, and district data will be provided to the statefor analysis and decision-making.

Objective 4: Improve equitable access to appropriate technologies among all stakeholders. Targets include... School systems willprovide access to technology after school hours for all learners. All school systems will have policies and procedures in place to address equivalent accessibility to technology-based products for students... To meet MSDE targets for equitable access, all schoools will need, one high performance computer per educator for administrative and instructional use...

﻿Targets include.. BCPS, in collaboration with the Technology Plan Advisory Committee, the Superintendent's Executive Staff, an dother BCPS stakeholders, will monitor the implementatio of the plan.
 * //Objective 5: Improve the instructional uses of technology through research and evaluation.// **

"The document which was most important to the Technology Plan Revision Committee was the **//Maryland Educational Technology Plan for the New Millennium: 2007 – 2012 //**. It provided the most guidance as the committee sought to complete its work." (BCPS Office of Instruction) "...key report on technology implementation was published by the State Education Technology Directors Association (SETDA), the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills in the fall of 2007." || Conduct onsite visits and engage in ongoing dialogue with schools and offices to monitor progress toward goals and objectives of BCPS Framework for Technology Implementation: 2008-2011, to collect promising practices, and to ascertain technical assistance needed.
 * ** Required supporting documentation (e.g. research data, inventories): **
 * ** Evaluation requirements for this plan: **

Establish a Technology Plan Advisory Committee, consisting of BCPS stakeholders, to provide oversight of the implementation, evaluation, and revision of the Framework for Technology Implementation: 2008-2011.

Provide incentives for schools and offices to participate in research and evaluation activities, through state and federal grant programs and other initiatives.

Utilize technology to collect and analyze data to evaluate the impact of professional development on the use of technology in instruction and its impact on student achievement. || In order to meet state and federal requirements, a process for revision was developed and in the fall of 2007 and another revision of the Baltimore County Technology Plan was needed. In 2008-2011, Dr. Hairston and the Technology Plan Revision Committee came together to create a new plan for 2008-2011. The commitee utilized the BCPS's Blueprint for Progress and the BCPS's Master Plan. They reviewed the national educational technology plan, and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, as well as other documents. The plan currently put into place is from July 1, 2008-June 30, 2011. This plan will need to be and will be revised after June 30, 2011. (Baltimore County Public Schools, 2008, p. 5).
 * ** Reporting requirements for this plan: ** ||
 * ** Revision cycle for this plan: **

“It was the intent of the Technology Plan Revision Committee that the Framework be specific enough to provide direction, yet open-ended enough to allow for dynamic changes as new approaches and technologies become available to further support and improve student achievement. Consequently, it was decided that this revision should be viewed primarily as an ongoing and flexible framework and that there be a regularly scheduled examination of the document to determine if revisions are needed as the plan is implemented. It is especially important that Sections Two (Technology Implementation: Objectives 1-5) and Three (Budget Information) be examined annually, as they contain the descriptions of the objectives and the activities needed to fulfill the plan and a description of the cost analysis for implementation over the next three years” (Baltimore County Technology Plan - A framework for Technology Implementation, 2008-2011 pg. 17). || The adopted FY 2009 budget for instructional and information technology is $29.4 million. Included in this amount are the wiring, equipment, software, online resources and telecommunications services necessary to provide adequate support for the Technology Plan ||
 * ** Funding sources to support this plan: **

of goals (targets) for each objective and a long list of actions to take in order to meet each of those goals. ||  ** Weaknesses ** The overview section is a little long (18 pages out  of 50) and redundant. || Recommendations BCPS should include a number of grants they are looking into that will help fund the technology plan. || opposed to the Maryland State Technology plan which revises every 4-5 years. Three years seem more appropriate especially since new technologies are being integrated and replacing older technologies at a much faster rate in the past 5-10 years. || The plan states that there needs to be $29.4 milliion in the budget in order to fund the plan, but there are no recommendations on how the county will acquire such funds. || Since Maryland schools are fiscally dependant, BCPS should use action research to gather data as support when convincing taxpayers and the BOE of the need for technology in schools. ||
 *  ** Strengths ** In the technology implementation section it has a set
 * I like how the plan is revised every three years as
 * This plan makes their initiative known. If you work in BCPS you know what a puch technology is. || Not all BCPS have access to the available technology . ||  ||

 // Baltimore County Public School Systems. A Framework for Technology Integration, 2008-2011. // __<span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;">[] __