home

Tech Plan Process 2011

I have invited you to review this process because you were involved in the last plan cycle and each of you contributed significantly to the overall outcome. Your input in this work is requested as we consider moving the tech planning process to a more streamlined, **online**, and hopefully, useful procedure. I will also be inviting some other individuals not involved in the old plan process to give some fresh perspective. Thanks in advance for your time and contribution.

Some brief "rules" for contribution here... Please feel free to edit any of the pages to add content. Please don't delete or change my content. IF you do edit, please choose a color for your edits and identify yourself at the beginning or end of your post...

Some explanation:

This wiki is organized in a particular order.. this the introduction, and hopefully, gives you a taste of my direction with changes in the next iteration.
 * The "Resources" page contains links to the 09-12 tech plan, and some initiatives that met goals in the plan, Vermont Virtual, scenarios, etc.
 * "The Current Plan" page gives a synopsis of what I believe we have accomplished for goals over the last 3 years. Feel free to add or correct areas that you feel should be highlighted.
 * "What I Need From You" contains some questions and is the page you may want to make longer comments on. I am most interested in hearing your thoughts on how you may interpret the field response to any of this work.


 * TO BEGIN....**

First, I feel it necessary to indicate the USAC requirements about technology plans. We used to have plans for both Title IID reasons AND USAC, but since Title IID has gone, we are faced with really focusing on the USAC requirement. I believe we are situated just fine for our current plan being viable for this next round. I MAY extend our current plan expirations to Sept.30, 2012 but am awaiting clarification on whether I need to do that. Here is current USAC information on the requirement of plans...from their website:

> "A technology plan must be written - including all required elements - **at the time the Form 470 is filed.** **Currently approved** > **plans that cover at least part of the upcoming funding year and support the services that will be requested on the Form 471 meet this requirement**. Also, an applicant that purchases services from a state master contract and cites the associated state-filed Form 470 on the funding request is not required to have a written technology plan before the state filed its Form 470. Technology plans must be approved before the start of service."

Beginning with FY2011, technology plans are required only for Priority 2 services (Internal Connections and Basic Maintenance of Internal Connections). I believe this means most of our schools because we don't have many from our 2008 erate evaluation report that were included in Priority 1 status.

In thinking about a planning process for this next round, I decided it makes sense to put in place an automated system that we already are running out of the department. This system could help to streamline the process and also help locals develop their tech plan document in a format that might then be more trackable from both a DOE and local leadership perspective.. for example, how many schools are pursuing professional development in establishing teacher web pages, how many are budgeting over x amount of dollars for access in the coming plan cycle, etc. We might actually be able to "mine" some data from these in this format.
 * Moving Forward....**

We have a system run out of the Department called Grantium which includes a tool called G3. This tool is used for the process in our Consolidated Federal Programs (TitleI, IIA, IID, etc.). The system essentially is set up where individuals from SU’s submit strategies under a set of Title sub headings for the funding they need around various aspect of the total school program. For example, in Title IID, one of the strategy categories is Student Technology Literacy, under which the SU indicates that as the heading and then writes a 300 character or less strategy to indicate the activity that requires the funds. After review on this end at DOE, the system generates an “award” and the SU will then get their money. Obviously, a big piece of this system is its tie into the financial department. For our tech plans, we won't need this aspect of the system which simplifies it considerably

Here is a page from the application.. not much to see, but you can see that it provides opportunities for many drop downs and then a space for the narrative, in this case, limited to 300 characters, but this is customized for this particular application. We are experimenting with how this would appear in a tech plan process.

I plan on using the same system and set up the local tech plan process much like a grant process. Locals will review some documentation online that will include the state plan and instructions or a template for the local tech plan. Then it will be submitted via the G3 system and an e-signature will be required by the superintendent. (which they already have). After the review the system will “grant” an award, in this case (hopefully) a letter that will state the plan has been reviewed and approved and this will be the document you can retain for E-rate.

The front page has a left nav bar that allows for inclusion of documents to assist in the local process, like this...



I know that does not give you much to go by system-look wise, but suffice that the system would serve this purpose well and provide a more self-serve approach as far as the locals are concerned. An additional feature within does allow someone to pdf the entire document and that could serve as the document that lives on people's web pages as I know some schools do display their plan in that fashion. It could also serve in the cases where the DOE may need to refer an example to another school creating a plan, etc.

What questions come up for you in terms of automating a system in this fashion?