K. Bradley Cox is superintendent of Erie CUSD 1 in Whiteside County.
Technological innovation is bringing a profound change to what happens not only in the classroom, but also to a child’s mind. As technology applications continue to grow, the question remains: How do we apply technology in the classroom in a way that will truly improve instruction?
This refers to the advent of one-to-one, or 1:1 learning — an environment where each child in the classroom makes use of a laptop or other digital technology. Even in these difficult fiscal times, it is hard to ignore the presence of laptops, netbooks, smart phones and iPads. When these tools are given to students in the proper culture and climate, the process of learning has little choice but to evolve from the absorption and regurgitation of facts to the creation and true understanding of knowledge.
Like most successful change, support from above and drive from within must fuel the change. The school board needs to set policy that demonstrates a commitment to 1:1 learning and that sends a clear message to administration, teachers, staff and the community that acceptance of technology is crucial and is the key to the future success of all children. The board needs to communicate that the district is willing to commit its most valuable resources — time and money — to the pursuit of this extensive initiative.
The administration then must lead through action, commitment, support and accountability by personally modeling technology usage and ensuring that the staff uses the tools they’re given.
Simultaneously, a nurturing environment should be created so that staff members know they will be supported and given the chance to succeed or fail in the name of doing great things for kids. Additionally, this technology focus should be at the core of documented building-level school improvement and strategic planning.
Since the primary impact occurs in the classroom, the teaching staff must research and welcome the technology. But the hardware itself is not the largest change. The most significant transformation during this process will be the difference in instruction and learning.
When every student takes ownership of personal knowledge creation, teachers must learn how to be the “guide on the side,” and not be the “sage on the stage.” As with most educational reform, much of the change in instructional styles will be led informally by teacher leaders. It is crucial that these teacher leaders be professionally developed and used to model, present and support the technological changes being made.
Desired outcomes
Many reasons exist for traveling the 1:1 road. Even though technology changes rapidly, it is still important to figure out why an organization wants to pursue this path, even if that rationale may change throughout time. Facilitating quality discussions regarding the district’s desired outcomes will help formulate and solidify your actions.
A few of the desired outcomes might be:
• Providing additional curricular opportunities through online courses, dual credit, and an increase in independent study opportunities.
• Providing a better way to teach the 21st century skills of critical thinking, communication, problem-solving and innovation through technology.
• Providing all students with the tools to exceed thereby leveling the playing field in a world where not all children are sent to school equal.
• Teaching today’s “digital native” children by using the technology that governs the rest of their lives (remote controls, iPods, home computers, cell phones, etc.), not paper and pencils.
• Shifting the emphasis to creation of knowledge by the student, allowing children to learn in a way that is most effective for them — the ultimate in differentiated instruction.
• Through curriculum, providing students access to the technologies that they will soon be asked to use as productive members of society.
Substantial reasons exist for changing the way a school embarks upon the journey of educating those who are the society of the future. However, determining exactly why an organization has the desire to implement this change will help to determine focus for the initial steps on the path. It will define the program itself and determine staff professional development.
Professional development
Training people is expensive, but not training people costs dearly. Once a district determines student outcomes for a 1:1 program, a closer look will be needed at the skills teachers need to have to provide that targeted learning environment.
Consider questions like:
Will students have e-mail accounts and use teacher drop boxes?
What content-creation software (Google docs, Microsoft Suite, iWorks, etc.) will be used?
How will teachers successfully transition to a student-centered classroom?
Remember, this is a mass overhaul of the way students are taught and how they learn. It is unrealistic to think that teachers have most or even some of the skills necessary to make a 1:1 program effective.
Once the necessary teacher skills have been identified, a specific training program should be created. A variety of models exist with some more successful than others. Staff can be trained during the summer onsite or be sent offsite to multiple-day trainings. A district could use its all-day teacher institutes. Many districts take school improvement half-days that offer two- to three-hour blocks. Others provide similar blocks during the school day on a monthly basis.
Another approach is to have bi-monthly dismissals, after getting the mandated 300 clock-minutes, to provide staff with 60 to 90 minutes for training. Other models may be workable as well, but the objective is to find a model that works and provides the teachers with the support they need to be successful.
Infrastructure
In order for a technology-based program to be successful, the technology itself has to function in a reliable capacity. Have you ever been somewhere and needed to make a call but had no cell signal? It’s the same with technology in the classroom: after the third time teachers have to wait 10 minutes for a page to load, they will get out the paper and pencils and be done with the new hardware.
So, what makes a 1:1 program reliable?
The first issue is speed. A network is comprised of a few major components: Internet, servers, backbone, switches and access points. Have the district technology coordinator take a close look at each of these pieces and find out if they are capable of handling the hundreds or thousands of additional users and the accompanying data traffic.
The easiest way to think about a network is to visualize a freeway. If there is a bottleneck on the freeway where four lanes of traffic merge into one lane, the flow comes to a screeching halt. The infrastructure should be examined using this lens: which component will slow down the flow of data? Once it has been determined that all of the major components can handle the traffic, it is time to test.
One free tip: Since the Internet does go out from time to time, it may be worthwhile to actually have two separate Internet providers.
The second issue is testing. Technology programs require constant updates, patches and other fixes. When changes are necessary, they should be done on a small scale in a test group. Once a high degree of confidence exists that the changes will not negatively impact the network, the large-scale changes can be implemented. Nothing is more catastrophic than rolling out an access point controller update en masse, only to learn an hour later that the entire wireless network has crashed.
Financial impact
As a district changes from a computer lab setting to a 1:1 environment, expenses will change. More dollars will be spent on hardware, since every student will need a device. The choice of that hardware will drive many discussions — functionality, cost, software, etc. As a general guideline, more “robust” hardware (i.e., greater functionality) will have a greater initial purchase cost.
Erie CUSD 1 would be a high end scenario for expenditures, because the district went from one with a relatively small amount of technology hardware and infrastructure to one with a fifth to 12th grade 1:1 program using powerful Apple MacBook Pro laptops.
Prior to the 1:1 switch, the district had a ratio of five pre-K-12 students to every computer at an expense of about $105/pupil. Post implementation, the district spent about $572 per student with a ratio of four students for every five computers, or about $114/pupil/year.
Not all the financial impacts are negative. One savings will come from a decrease in textbook expenses. Even though some of the established textbook companies are requiring the purchase of a hardbound classroom set of books in order to access their online version, a reduction in costs does still occur.
Currently, Erie anticipates a savings of $28/pupil/year. As more online resources become available, it is very possible that these savings soon will increase.
Professional development also is a place to spend money. However, Erie’s 1:1 program did not increase the district’s professional development expenses, even though there was an increase in teacher training. In-house training by district personnel helped to keep the district’s professional development costs low.
Not only do in-house sessions allow for very specific training that precisely fits district needs, but it saves the travel and registration costs for off-site workshops.
Collaboration
All of the previously mentioned areas are important, but collaboration may be the most critical component. A district considering this significant shift must seek expertise by initiating conversations and site visits with people who are using a similar model.
Observe what other programs look like, hear their stories, and learn from their successes and failures. This also allows teachers and administrators to cultivate external resources and make personal connections with professionals in other districts.
Generally speaking, educators are a caring group. If someone asks for their help or advice, they will give of themselves willingly for the satisfaction that more children will benefit from their knowledge.
Teachers, especially informal leaders who are more tech-savvy, should be the instructors at in-house trainings. This allows them to model the skills that their peers will need. Also, the staff will be reassured by seeing one of their colleagues demonstrating proficiency in the skill while assuring them that with proper time and training, they will be proficient as well. Having informal leaders engaged heavily in the program helps with staff excitement, motivation and buy-in.
The most momentous part of a 1:1 initiative for the teachers may actually occur after the program has begun. Students will start showing teachers what another teacher is doing in a different class, such as an engaging project or new method of learning. As a result, staff members will stop each other in the hall to get advice on a project or software application.
Getting teachers to have spontaneous, open dialogue about how to be better teachers may, in and of itself, be a reason to move to a 1:1 model. It is very easy to see how this type of pedagogical shift, combined with the proper support and climate, can turn a building into a true learning community.
Not all 1:1 programs will look the same, because all schools are not the same. Each program must be customized to satisfy student needs. In the same vein, the students of today are not the same as the students of a generation ago.
The world is changing, and it is important that education evolves in order to ensure children’s success and a brighter tomorrow. The 1:1 model is only the beginning of the new process.