Most of these items have been discussed earlier, but they are important enough to bear repeating. In case you've skipped to the end of the story, we refer you back to relevant page where appropriate.

Moving ahead without gauging people's interest or securing commitment to the change.

Teachers already overloaded with mandates for change, parents who consider technology-based instruction an expensive diversion from basic skills, a school board worried about the bottom line--any of these can derail even the most promising technology initiative. Taking time to lay the proper groundwork for change may be the best investment you can make (see "Where should I start?").

Having only one or two people develop the technology plan

Work by committee may seem cumbersome, but in this case it's a necessity. Above all, you need a group capable of envisioning the ways in which technology can support effective teaching and foster the kinds of skills students will need in their adult lives (see "How do we develop a technology plan?" ).

Considering the technology plan as a bureaucratic requirement rather than as an essential blueprint for your effort.

More and more states are requiring district technology plans; funding sources often require them as well. If you've already breezed through one of these mandated forms, resist the temptation to recycle it. A realistic plan will save you not only money but indigestion.

Thinking that, once you're through with the technology plan, you're through.

Of course reality never quite matches the plans we make. But the biggest job of implementing a good technology plan is maintaining your instructional vision. Strong leadership and on-going support are essential to making the kinds of instructional changes discussed in this guide. Moreover, you'll need to revisit your planning process periodically, at least every three to five years, in order to keep your systems functioning and up to date.

Failing to match technology resources to the local infrastructure.

We know of one school that can't run its air conditioning system and its computers at the same time. A careful audit could have uncovered this problem (see "What are the components of a good technology plan?" ).

Relying on "soft money" for your technology program.

There are many ways to fund technology through federal, state, and corporate grant dollars, and the wise administrator will secure as much of this support as possible. However, technology requires a solid source of funding, which means it must be a part of the school's permanent budget. While grants may provide an initial bounty of hardware, software, and training, schools must establish an internal support system for staffing, equipment repairs, and refurbishment (see "The bottom line is, how can we afford it?").

Falling prey to hype about a particular piece of hardware or software.

Technology vendors, as well as the technology enthusiasts on your staff, will make their pitches for cutting-edge hardware and software, urging your committee to buy the next great thing. Assessing what's best for your situation is always a challenge, especially given the rapid changes in the field. But if the planning committee will (1) start with a focus on instructional needs, (2) make systems compatibility, upgrade capacity, and ease of use higher priorities than bells and whistles, (3) do their homework (i.e., research everything thoroughly), and (4) get expert help when they need it, they'll make sound decisions.

Making short-term purchase decisions that don't allow for growth, or that create compatibility problems.

At the opposite end of the pendulum is the danger of making poor purchasing decisions in an effort to hold down costs. A bargain is a bargain only when it works; computers or software that sit unused are costly at whatever the price.

Being too general, or too specific, in laying out specifications for purchases.

As noted earlier, this is an area where an expert consultant can be of great help. Or study technology plans that other school districts have developed. You can find a number of sample plans, along with tips and guidelines, online.

Under-investing in teacher training.

Inadequate teacher training is a major barrier to the integration of technology into the classroom. The old idea that technology might replace teachers is long-dead; teachers must know more, not less, in order for technology to help kids become effective learners (see "How can we assure that teachers and other staff are well prepared?" ).

Not planning for technical assistance.

If you've tinkered with technology at all, you've probably learned at least two lessons about fixing problems: One, the instructional manuals don't always help. Two, you can't always rely on intuition or experience to figure out a solution. Your staff will need someone they can call on for technical assistance, someone who can talk them through a procedure and solve problems that aren't addressed in the manual (see "How can we get the troubleshooting help we need?").

Being too impatient to see results

Technology planning alone sometimes takes as much as a year. As those with experience have noted: "Even with all of the elements properly in place, it will still be three to five years before you'll see widespread changes in educational structures and instructional delivery at a systematic level." (Jukes, 1996) Expect a lengthy process--but remember: you're not merely putting a piece of equipment on a desk, you're changing the way teachers teach and the way students learn.