The author presents five case studies of groups that have drafted Technology plans and begun implementation. She successfully illustrates her point that drafting a plan to integrate technology into the schools is a more structured process than in the past. It is also more results oriented; this means that the technology plans all identify specific measurable goals.

Unfortunately, in review all five of these first-hand accounts of developing technology plans, I found each to be lacking in discussing what I believe is the most important ingredient - the integration of technology into the curriculum. There seems to be an epidemic in our country of schools getting funded for equipment (hardware and software) but insufficient thought to exploiting these new learning/teaching tools.

The technology objectives usually include computer-managed-instruction (CMI). Not enough of a priority is placed on computer-based-instruction (CBI), or computer-aided-instruction (CAI), or technology-embedded-instruction, etc.

It is similar in other industries where the development (evolution) of a discipline runs in two parallel paths, each path at times slightly ahead or slightly behind its counterpart. In the case of computers, advances in computer technology happened when both the hardware engineers and the software engineers were in sync. For some time we had powerful computers (strong hardware engineers) with inadequate applications to exploit them. We have also gone through periods (more visible to the non-technical) where we have creative applications (multi-party video conferencing) but the hardware/software/network issues are still too complex to make these connections household appliances.

With the integration of technology into our schools I see a similar pattern emerging. There are those who spend their energy providing their schools with all (much of) the latest educational technology. But the application of this technology, its integration into the curriculum, is slow at best and often nonexistent. We have all heard of stories of schools with unused computers (unplugged in some cases) because there wasn't an adequate plan to inter grate the technology into the school work - including the most important part, staff development.

The current culture in the United States, dictates that nearly all educational initiatives have defined criteria to measure the success of the program. Unfortunately, this often has the effect of shifting the objectives of some programs from one of improving learning in a school to one of getting good results in local/state/federal evaluations.

The federal framework of no child left behind includes "...using technology as a means to improve curriculum, assessment, and teaching in all subject areas. It supports using electronic networks to deliver courses for (remote) students . . for evaluation of the resulting impact on student academic achievement. . . (for) professional development and it encourages leveraging funds." (Solomon, p29)

While the federal guidelines seem to be on target, of the five schools, whose Technology plans I reviewed, only one gave high priority to the integration of technology into the curriculum. None of the technology plans discussed the teaching of technology as a subject beyond staff development. Perhaps this is a good thing; these schools see technology as a tool to help achieve an end result, not the end result itself as in the past. But the bad inference I draw is that issues of Computer Managed instruction and record keeping and other administrative matters were higher priorities than determining HOW the technology would be applied to improve learning.

Only one of the technology plans recognized the fast changing pace of new educational technology and included a strategy to deal with it.

Almost all Technology plans relied on support from local/state/federal grants as well as from the community. In other words, schools are often left to their own resources to fund the technology plans they make. This certainly affects the scope of their vision. One of the avid supporters of such efforts is the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation. While one might argue that these are self-serving acts of altruism, they are nevertheless, true acts of generosity that enables learning in many places where it would have been delayed.

Many schools that draft technology plans are required to map their plan to a state/federal definition of an "official" technology plan. It is an exercise many schools go through.

The following useful links were referenced in the above article.
New Technology High School, Napa California
Nebraska Department of Education Plano Independent School District (Plano Tx)

Solomon, Gwen, (2004)
Drafting a Customized Tech Plan, Technology & Learning, February, 2004- Volume 24(7)

review by Jerry Garfunkel