District IT chief outlines strategic plan with targets for uptime, service and coaching

Rick Anthony, the district’s chief information officer, told the Board of Education during a study session that the information technology strategic plan is an update and still being refined with input from a technology steering committee, principals and district stakeholders. “Our vision in information technology in Granite is to produce a service environment where technology access, continuous improvement, and innovation work together consistently, work together to consistently exceed stakeholder expectations,” Anthony said.

Anthony said the plan is organized around three measurable goals tied to the district strategic plan: improving student outcomes, increasing work-order user satisfaction and increasing network and application stability. For example, the plan lists a target that “90% or more of work-order system tickets will meet or exceed their service level agreement” and that the district wireless network be operational 99% of the time at each location. Anthony said those targets are high-level goals and that several operational definitions and baseline measures are not complete.

Why this matters: the plan sets the district’s expectations for IT service levels, device and application availability, cybersecurity and staffing priorities. Board members pressed for clarity about how measures will be collected and how the plan will be reported back to the board.

On service level agreements, Anthony said Granite School District will be the party that makes a timing commitment to stakeholders and that some repair types already have draft SLAs — for example, audio‑visual repairs where some work types are set to a three‑day resolution timer. He warned that some tickets may be routed to other shops or third parties and that the district’s ticket system will pause the SLA timer while another shop is doing its part.

Anthony described three objectives under the service priority: formal SLAs, communication and collaboration, and technology coaching. For communication the plan lists measures such as “90% or more of meetings will have agendas, notes and action items documented,” and targets for minimum response rates on stakeholder feedback. For coaching, Anthony said the district will survey teachers to determine whether “80% or more of teachers will indicate increased knowledge of digital applications and their alignment to instructional strategies.” He said the teacher response is gathered by surveying all teachers and that responses will not name individual coaches but will ask whether the support received increased their knowledge.

On connectivity and access, Anthony said Granite monitors about 4,500 wireless access points and that the plan’s connectivity goal pairs a 99% uptime target with access‑point saturation targets (for example, a one‑to‑one device/access‑point ratio in teacher areas) because uptime alone can mask poor user experience when wireless is slow. He cautioned that slowness is harder to measure and that some slowness events are caused by application performance rather than wireless infrastructure.

Anthony also described physical and cyber security measures, including camera and alarm uptime goals (a 99% operational target) and an education campaign to reduce phishing susceptibility; one proposed measure is that 99.5% of employees will correctly identify cyber threats after training. He said the district is still defining what constitutes a “high severity incident.”

On hardware and software, Anthony said measures will include a year‑over‑year decrease in tickets associated with disruption of digital tools and a quarterly up‑to‑date approved hardware and software list. He noted growing complexity: “an ever increasing amount of teacher supplemental materials are software types of items that are delivered digitally,” and that vetting for data privacy and sensitive‑materials compliance is becoming more necessary.

Several board members asked for detail on how technology coaches are evaluated and how teacher survey responses will be collected; Anthony said the director of educational technology, Chris Larson, handles coaching evaluation and that the district has coaching standards intended to align evaluation to coaches’ instructional‑support role. Anthony said evaluations are conducted by the director, who collaborates with principals because coaches often split time across schools.

The plan lists actions under priorities (examples: data‑center strategy, monitoring and reporting, change management, data governance, inventory and asset management, e‑rate optimization, certification programs and succession planning). Anthony said some actions reflect recommendations from a third‑party review conducted about three to four years ago and that the plan is meant to be living and adjusted based on measured results.

Board members asked for an annual report showing progress on the plan and for a later study session focused on classroom technology strategy, use of Chromebooks and artificial intelligence tools. Anthony said the district currently allows staff access to external AI tools but restricts students to a state‑approved “School AI” tool on district devices and that broader AI policy, student privacy and age‑appropriate use are topics for further discussion.

Ending: Anthony said the district will incorporate board feedback, run the plan through the IT steering committee and then solicit wider input from schools and principals. He indicated the board would be expected to receive periodic updates as the plan’s measures are finalized.