Thank You Paul, You are spot-on! I swear you were looking over my shoulder as I carried the soul burden to make the TP last year.
After reading through my data, to make a data-driven Goal (since this is how the whole form flows) SMART goal, the review committee spit the TP back to me with a new SMART goal totally unrelated to my data. So just to get this damn thing off my desk and back to work, I accepted THEIR SMART goal and it moved through. This should tell you how much effort you should put into the questionnaires, committees and public feedback to create a data driven SMART goal. I'm so glad this is online so next time (2 yrs) I will also do a lot of cutting and pasting. Scott ________________________________________ From: tech-geeks-boun...@tech-geeks.org [tech-geeks-boun...@tech-geeks.org] On Behalf Of Paul Welte [pwe...@nashville-k12.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:33 AM To: Tech-Geeks Mailing List Subject: Re: [tech-geeks] ISBE Tech Inventory Survey Very true, however, the current system (with all due-respect to the hard-working individuals who oversee and provide guidance for the project) is broken. Many years ago when I first had the opportunity to coordinate the submission of our technology plan(s), I thought it was a great idea. I met with several teams of community, staff, students, and peers. We developed a three-to-five year plan that we considered a "go-to" document. After submitting it, failing miserably, re-submitting, failing, re-submitting, failing, re-submitting and finally passing, our approved plan looked NOTHING like the one we worked so hard to develop. For the next two renewals, I learned that the best way to get a plan approved was to simply copy and paste, copy and paste, copy and paste from old plans and from within the plan itself. Even then, we had to hope that we "got the right" peer review team. I finally passed the buck to colleagues for the last renewal cycle. Maybe I'm missing something or I don't have the same "vision" as those in charge. But, in these tough economic times when we're fighting just to maintain our equipment, the technology plan (as it has been implemented the last several years) is a grand distraction and burden. If isolated groups of peer reviewers are going to judge our plans using a generic template/checklist, then just produce a statewide plan that lists action items and goals and let us sign-off on that. Why force each district to spend countless hours producing, effectively, the same document? Again, I am grateful for the assistance provided by the great many people at the ROE's, LTC's, and elsewhere. Without their guidance we would have no chance of getting an approved plan. I just don't think the "approved plan" is that great of a goal anymore. Sorry for the rant. Paul Welte Technology Coordinator Nashville (Illinois) Public Schools www.nashville-k12.org<http://www.nashville-k12.org/> PH: 618-327-8286 x272 Cell: 618-599-2782 >>> "Steele, Thomas C" <tste...@manteno5.org> 9/21/2010 8:35 AM >>> "It's probabaly the most ignored document in the system between writings." ...which is really sad considering that, just like a well-written business plan, a well-written technology plan that actually addresses a district's needs with realistic goals and expectations can be a valuable tool. Thomas C. Steele Technology Director Manteno CUSD #5 | Subscription info at http://www.tech-geeks.org |
