1.2 Strategic Planning
Candidates facilitate the design, development, implementation, communication, and evaluation of technology-infused strategic plans. (PSC 1.2/ISTE 1b)
Artifact: S.I.P./Tech Plan Analysis
Reflection:
The S.I.P./Tech Plan Analysis was an independent assessment of the SIP Plan and county Tech Plan. It looked at how technology was addressed in the SIP Plan and how technology use, defined using the technology plan of the county, was being implemented. It was done in the Technology Leadership course during the Spring 2021 semester. It was done independently by answering questions using the school SIP plan, county technology plan, school data, and an inventory of technology devices in the school. During
This artifact facilitates the evaluation of the current S.I.P./Tech Plan. To evaluate it, I compared the SIP Plan to the County Tech Plan and assessed how they both addressed technology use and meeting our school goals. I discovered vague mentions of technology that were not aligned to the goals of the SIP Plan. Through further evaluation of the tech plan, I found that much of the plan had been accomplished but lacked clarity on how teachers could look and understand those achievements.
I communicated with my principal and leadership team the weaknesses I discovered and the areas I believe we can strengthen. These conversations were face-to-face in my Principal's office and during Data Leadership Team meetings once a month. The Leadership team consists of Department Chairs, PLC Leads, the instructional lead specialist, the academic facilitator, and administrators. As an outcome, the next version of our SIP Plan will implement how the subgroups use technology to better align to the Tech Plan that the analysis discussed. The team tasked with the design and development of the new SIP Plan will be the Data Technology team, and the S.I.P./Tech Plan Analysis will be used as the basis for it.
Completing this artifact taught me that many things that impact the school from the county level must be taken and applied. However, they must be applied to have the correct outcome for the school. For example, the Tech Plan discusses adequate technology, but at Teasley, this had a different meaning than the other schools. Teasley is the only 1:1 school. If done again, I would like to facilitate interviews with those who created the SIP Plan and Tech Plan. A better understanding of their mindset and directive would allow for a better assessment.
The S.I.P./Tech Plan assessment impacted school improvement and faculty development immediately. As soon as I presented it to my Principal, she wanted me to discuss it with the Data Leadership Team. Many on the team had never seen the county Tech Plan, so they raised some of the same concerns with the SIP Plan when discussing it. The impact has already been seen. The new SIP Plan will be created using this artifact as a reference. The actual impact will be seen when our tech training and technology usage change to target the subgroups our SIP Plan goals are for.
The S.I.P./Tech Plan Analysis was an independent assessment of the SIP Plan and county Tech Plan. It looked at how technology was addressed in the SIP Plan and how technology use, defined using the technology plan of the county, was being implemented. It was done in the Technology Leadership course during the Spring 2021 semester. It was done independently by answering questions using the school SIP plan, county technology plan, school data, and an inventory of technology devices in the school. During
This artifact facilitates the evaluation of the current S.I.P./Tech Plan. To evaluate it, I compared the SIP Plan to the County Tech Plan and assessed how they both addressed technology use and meeting our school goals. I discovered vague mentions of technology that were not aligned to the goals of the SIP Plan. Through further evaluation of the tech plan, I found that much of the plan had been accomplished but lacked clarity on how teachers could look and understand those achievements.
I communicated with my principal and leadership team the weaknesses I discovered and the areas I believe we can strengthen. These conversations were face-to-face in my Principal's office and during Data Leadership Team meetings once a month. The Leadership team consists of Department Chairs, PLC Leads, the instructional lead specialist, the academic facilitator, and administrators. As an outcome, the next version of our SIP Plan will implement how the subgroups use technology to better align to the Tech Plan that the analysis discussed. The team tasked with the design and development of the new SIP Plan will be the Data Technology team, and the S.I.P./Tech Plan Analysis will be used as the basis for it.
Completing this artifact taught me that many things that impact the school from the county level must be taken and applied. However, they must be applied to have the correct outcome for the school. For example, the Tech Plan discusses adequate technology, but at Teasley, this had a different meaning than the other schools. Teasley is the only 1:1 school. If done again, I would like to facilitate interviews with those who created the SIP Plan and Tech Plan. A better understanding of their mindset and directive would allow for a better assessment.
The S.I.P./Tech Plan assessment impacted school improvement and faculty development immediately. As soon as I presented it to my Principal, she wanted me to discuss it with the Data Leadership Team. Many on the team had never seen the county Tech Plan, so they raised some of the same concerns with the SIP Plan when discussing it. The impact has already been seen. The new SIP Plan will be created using this artifact as a reference. The actual impact will be seen when our tech training and technology usage change to target the subgroups our SIP Plan goals are for.