Parkway launches comprehensive technology program evaluation; review will assess infrastructure, cybersecurity and student computing
Loading...
Summary
The district's technology and innovation leaders outlined a program evaluation at the Aug. 6 Board of Education meeting that will examine technical support, student computing, infrastructure, and cybersecurity. The review aims to produce recommendations in 2026 and will involve surveys, focus groups and a board subcommittee.
At the Board of Education's Aug. 6 work session, technology leaders presented a planned comprehensive evaluation of Parkway's technology program aimed at assessing reliability, classroom integration and cybersecurity.
Julian Erber, director of technology and innovation, and Eric Ziegler, manager of technology service operations, said the review will examine four domains: technical support and service quality; the student computing experience (including the district's 1:1 Chromebook program); technology infrastructure and life‑cycle planning; and cybersecurity and data privacy. "Bad actors are targeting K‑12 districts both locally and nationwide," Erber told trustees while explaining why cybersecurity is a core focus.
Why it matters: The technology department last underwent a formal evaluation in 2015. Leaders told the board that Parkway now supports roughly 25,000 devices that connect daily, has increased bandwidth more than tenfold since 2015, and provides Chromebooks for students in grades 3–12 to take home. Those changes increase dependency on stable networks, up‑to‑date core systems and user training. The review will include performance metrics, customer satisfaction measures, equity and accessibility checks, and an audit of student data privacy practices.
Process and timeline: Staff said the evaluation will begin in August with a kickoff and run through data collection this fall; the district expects to convene a board subcommittee and conduct surveys and focus groups (students, teachers, principals, operations staff and parents were listed as target stakeholders). Findings and recommendations are planned for presentation to the board during 2026. Trustees asked whether off‑site disaster recovery and incident response would be covered; Eric Ziegler said yes, those items are part of the incident response review. Board members urged broad stakeholder outreach and noted the evaluation could inform facilities and long‑range planning.
Ending: Erber and Ziegler asked for trustee feedback on scope and stakeholders; the board agreed the review should include students, teachers, principals and families and requested follow‑up on disaster‑recovery and data‑privacy readiness.
